Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with), — Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Uxbridge and Wycombe District Gas Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the. Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Lowestoft Corporation Bill

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF (Ex-SERVICE MEN).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions what proportion of the administrative officials on the establishment of the Ministry of Pensions at salaries exceeding £295 a year are ex-service men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): There are 337 officials in the Ministry of Pensions in receipt of salaries exceeding £295 per annum. Of these, 183 (54 per cent.) are ex-service men, and 154 (46 per cent.) have not seen service. Of the latter, 101 are established Civil Servants. I may add that it is the policy of the Ministry to employ ex-service men wherever possible, and that of the total male staff of the Ministry at the present time 91 per cent. are ex-service men.

DECENTRALISATION.

Mr. LUNN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is possible to carry out any system of decentralisation in the regulation of pensions, with a view to reducing the present congestion at head-quarters and expediting the payment of service pensions?

Major TRYON: I assume my hon. Friend refers to the payment of pensions, as the Awards Branch of the Ministry have now been decentralised. As stated in reply to previous questions on this subject, the question of decentralising Pension Issue Office has not escaped attention, but it is not considered to be a practicable step at the present time.

Mr. LUNN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that the continual reduction of the powers of local war pensions committees, which have done good work during the War, is in the interests either of the ex-service men or of efficient administration?

Major TRYON: I do not think the reduction of the powers of local war pensions committees arises on this question. The policy has been to decentralise by establishing regional control.

7TH SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (PRIVATE MURDEN).

Mr. WATERSON: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private Murden, No. 645,621, 7th Battalion South Wales Borderers, was discharged on 19th December last; that he has only been able to do four weeks' work since, owing to a malady contracted on War service, and although he has a wife and family to keep he can get no relief or pension; and can he expedite the granting of pension or advise as to how the family are to be maintained whilst the Ministry decides?

Major TRYON: There is no trace in the Ministry of any application for pension by Private Murden, and it is found on inquiry that his papers are still with the Record Office. They have now been called for in order that the question of pension may be investigated.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how this family is to be maintained until the pension is granted? Are they to go into the workhouse?

Major TRYON: Private Murden should apply to the local war pensions committee.

Mr. WATERSON: That will not satisfy the needs of the family.

HASTINGS WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any complaints from the staff of the Hastings War Pensions Committee and Medical Referees protesting against the insanitary condition of the offices occupied by this staff and Committee; whether he is aware that the Medical Referees who have held examinations of disabled men in the building unanimously condemned it on account of the unhealthy atmosphere, and on some occasions refusing on that account to examine men suffering from open wounds; that these premises were for some years occupied by a Department of the Corporation, but that, in consequence of excessive absences through sickness of the members of their staff, the Corporation decided to vacate them; and whether, in view of the unsuitability of these premises as offices and their general unhygienic condition, he will make inquiries into the matter, with
a view to securing accommodation in a more healthy situation?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The suitability of the accommodation now in occupation by the Hastings War Pensions Committee has been under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who is, I understand, endeavouring to secure other accommodation.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS (INCREASE).

Lieut.-Colonel PINKHAM: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if the Government will immediately consider the possibility of increasing pre-War pensions for ex-service men to the present total disability rate in such cases where it can be proved that the existing total disability is solely and entirely due to accident occasioned in the course of the man's duty, whether at manœuvres or elsewhere other than on actual campaign, with special reference to the case of C. Meredith, late Royal Navy, blinded by explosion while on duty on 14th February, 1914, on board H.M.S. "Grampus" lying off Malta, who is totally blind and whose pension is 13s. per week?

Major TRYON: The class of case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is under the immediate consideration of the Cabinet Committee on Pre-War Pensions.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man, whose injuries were entirely suffered in the course of his duties, is actually starving, and, pending the decision of the Cabinet Committee, could he give him some relief?

Major TRYON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will write to me about that. I am quite aware that these are cases of great hardship.

Captain R. TERRELL: When may we expect the decision of the Cabinet Committee?

Major TRYON: I will inquire. I hope it will be at a very early date. I am quite aware of the importance of this particular case.

DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the marked
increase in the cost of living since the disablement pensions were fixed in September, 1919, as admitted in the case of the coal miners, he will consider an increase in disablement pensions in proportion as the cost of living has risen since that date?

Major TRYON: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 27th instant, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the Committee's decision that you will do nothing for these disabled men, and will you deny to them what you give to the able-bodied miner?

Major TRYON: The Ministry are watching the movements of the cost of living. I am not convinced that frequent changes of pension up and down to follow the cost of living would be in the long run in the interests of the men.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why should you give to the miners what you would not give to the disabled pensioners?

Major TRYON: I am not aware that I gave anything to the miners.

Mr. BILLING: If you cannot control the miners will you try to control to some extent the cost of living, or else give some consideration to these pensioned men?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

PRISON OFFICERS.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the difficult and trying duties the Irish prisons officers have been performing for the past two or three years, and are at present performing, owing to the political unrest in that country; whether he is aware of the strain imposed on those officers by reason not only of their prison work but also because they are compelled to live amongst an unsympathetic and hostile public; that notwithstanding the difficulties and strain imposed on them those officers have performed, and are performing, their duties faithfully and loyally; if so, taking into consideration the difference that exists between their pay and the pay of the
Irish police, will he recommend that those officers be placed on a scale of pay on lines similar to that recently granted to the police forces; will he state whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to give a definite reply to the application of the Prisons Officers' Representative Council, dated 14th February, 1920; and, if so, when may the council expect such reply?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Henry): The Irish Government fully recognises the devotion to duty shown by prisons officers of all grades, and the application of the Prisons Officers' Representative Council referred to is having the Lord-Lieutenant's careful consideration, and the council was so informed on the 13th ultimo.

SCHOOL HISTORY MANUALS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the history manuals which are or were until recently in use in the primary Roman Catholic schools in Ireland; whether the question of the continued use of these manuals has been recently considered by the Board of National Education; whether the use of any of these manuals has been discontinued and for what reason; and whether he will place in the Library of the House some samples of these manuals to which objection has been taken?

Mr. HENRY: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given to a somewhat similar question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid Antrim (Major O'Neill) on the 17th February, 1919. Since that date sanction has not been withdrawn from any additional text books in history, but the Commissioners of National Education have for some time past been considering the general question of the selection of books (including historical text books) for the use of the pupils of National Schools for secular instruction, and are about to issue a revised list of such books to come into force after 1st July, 1920. This revised list is intended to comprise only works of high merit in each branch of instruction, and will consequently not contain all works previously sanctioned, but it is not to be assumed that any historical text books excluded from it have been omitted owing to objections on religious or political grounds.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to the last part of the question, whether he will place in the Library some samples of these historical text books to which objection has been taken, so that we may see for ourselves whether they are not saturated with sedition?

Captain REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether it would not serve a useful purpose if he would convey to his hon. and learned Friend copies of these historical manuals, and thereby enable him to display a greater knowledge of Irish affairs than he has in the many years during which he has displayed such a wonderful activity in this House?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of deciding whether these books are fit for educational use in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly; I will have copies placed in the Library.

HOUSING (LABOURERS).

Major O'NEILL: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many houses have been built and in respect of how many have schemes been submitted under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts since 1st September, 1919?

Mr. HENRY: It is not possible at present to say how many houses have been completed under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, since the 1st September, 1919, as the Local Government Board have not yet received this information from the rural district councils. New schemes submitted to the Board since the date mentioned comprise 46 cottages, and 72 plots. In addition there were 206 cottages commenced, but not completed on 31st March, 1919. Further there were 7,401 cottages included in schemes in various stages in progress. Most of these latter schemes were framed before the War, and required careful consideration before being proceeded with. Loans for the purchase of sites for 3,300 of these cottages have been advanced.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made in this important matter, and is he aware that there are a number of labourers throughout Ireland whose housing accommodation is atrocious, and
who are urgently in need of proper housing accommodation?

Mr. HENRY: I am quite aware of the importance of the question, but my hon. and gallant Friend must recollect that it is the rural district councils who are primarily, and, indeed, entirely, responsible for the erection of labourers' cottages.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the county councils of Ulster were the very last to take advantage of these Acts, which their representatives opposed in the House of Commons?

PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that public bodies in Ireland are limited to a 1d. rate for the purpose of maintaining public libraries; whether these public bodies find such a sum as this produces is totally inadequate for this purpose, owing to changed financial conditions; and whether, owing to the demand by these corporations and councils for permission to apply an increased rate, he will forthwith take the necessary measures to have the present English Public Libraries Act, 1919, applied to Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: Public bodies in Ireland are limited to a rate of 1d. in the £ for the purpose of maintaining libraries, except where an art gallery is established in any county borough under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, and in such boroughs a rate of 1½d. in the £ may be levied. So far, representations as to the inadequacy of the rate have been made by the Corporations of Dublin and Belfast, and four urban district Councils. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Victoria Division of Belfast on the 4th March last.

CATTLE-DRIVING.

Colonel ASHLEY: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that driving of cattle belonging to the grazing tenants has, on several occasions, been carried out on various estates in county Roscommon during the past few weeks: whether he is aware that the owner of one of these estates, whose name is with-
held in order to safeguard his life, has twice asked for protection, which so far has only produced two printed forms acknowledging receipt of the letters, but no protection; and what steps the Government propose to take to restore some form of ordered government in that county?

Mr. HENRY: It is a fact that a considerable number of cattle drives have occurred in county Roscommon, as stated. Special steps have been taken to cope with this matter, and additional military have been sent to the county. I have brought the case to the special notice of the police authorities.

Colonel ASHLEY: Where will the trial of these men who have been apprehended take place? Will it be in county Galway or Roscommon?

Mr. HENRY: The trial will take place before a court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, before two resident magistrates.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (DOCK LABOURERS).

Mr. WILLIAM COOTE: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the attempt of certain dock labour organisations in Ireland, principally Sinn Fein, to interfere with the free sale of agricultural produce in British markets; if he is aware that the farmers and farm labourers form the greater part of the population of Ireland and cannot exist if their industry is to be curtailed and their markets interfered with; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to protect their industry and encourage and ensure an increased production in future?

Mr. H. T. BARRIE (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture): The Irish branch of the Ministry of Transport informed the Department of Agriculture on the 10th instant, that the dockers at the port of Belfast had refused to handle butter for shipment to England and Scotland and that shipping companies had received intimation from the local Secretary of the Dockers' Union that on and after the 12th instant, members of the union would not handle any carcases of pork, bacon, ham, etc., until further notice. This attitude, it was announced, was taken up in consequence of the withdrawal of the control of the prices and
exports of such products. The stoppage subsequently extended to Londonderry, Greenore, Dublin and most other Irish ports and was also applied to live pigs, with consequent serious dislocation of trade in Ireland, including closing down of purchases of pigs by bacon-curing factories, as well as cessation of exports to Great Britain, and threatened deterioration of large quantities of perishable food.
In this emergency, conferences were held at the offices of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland with representatives of farmers, merchants and labour, at which a voluntary arrangement was arrived at for retail prices in Ireland and the resumption of exports. The whole position is continuing to receive careful consideration.

Captain REDMOND: Are we to understand that this so-called Soviet action in Ireland originated at Belfast?

Mr. COOTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are several Sinn Fein organisations working under the camouflage of labour which have for their object the suicidal policy of destroying any hopes of agriculture in the country by depriving the Irish people of British markets, and will he take steps to see that farm labourers are protected in this matter?

Mr. BARRIE: I think it would be incorrect to say that this action originated at Belfast. It is true the labourers at Belfast were the first to apply it, but I hope the House will not exaggerate the significance of an event which is I think already regretted and that the voluntary arrangement which has been entered into by all parties will be allowed a fair trial.

BELFAST PRISON (REFUSAL OF FOOD).

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that 145 prisoners are now on hunger strike in Belfast Gaol, and whether immediate steps will be taken to release them?

Mr. HENRY: The number of prisoners on hunger strike is substantially as stated in the hon. Member's question. It is not proposed to take immediate steps to release them.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Are these also untried and unconvicted prisoners, men against whom no charge has been preferred?

Mr. HENRY: I cannot give the exact figures of prisoners untried, but I am quite satisfied a substantial number of them are untried.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, which ever is able to answer, whether the Government has arrived at any decision as to the continued detention in prison of men whom they have not put on trial, and against whom they have preferred no charge?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): We have nothing to add to what we have said over and over again on this subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will say something?

Captain REDMOND: Can the Leader of the House state whether these persons in Belfast are receiving the same treatment at the hands of the Irish Executive or Irish Government, call it what you like, as the prisoners are receiving here in Wormwood Scrubs at the hands of the Home Secretary?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot really say that in detail the treatment is the same, but I can say that a distinct difference has been made in the treatment of those in that condition from those who have been convicted; and as has been stated more than once in debate we are ready to give any reasonable conditions.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the Home Secretary stated the other day in this House that the treatment meted out to such prisoners was different in this country from what it was in Ireland?

Mr. MacVEAGH: In view of the statement made last night by the Home Secretary, that he would consult his colleagues as to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that there should be an inquiry into the nature of the charges brought against these men, may I ask has that consultation taken place and, if not, when will it take place?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The statement was made by the Home Secretary with my knowledge and approval, but the hon. Member can hardly expect that there has been time already to allow the consultation to take place.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will it be after some of these men have died?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member really knows that they are not on hunger strike on any question of treatment, but because they demand unconditional release.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Or trial.

ARKLOW DISTURBANCE.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is now in a position to give full details with reference to the events in Arklow on Monday last, when a man named Dowling was killed and a man named Kavanagh was wounded?

Mr. HENRY: The military authorities have issued the following report as to the Arklow occurrence:
A procession was held at Arklow on Monday night, the 26th instant, to celebrate the return of a hunger striker released on parole from prison. During the procession several soldiers were assaulted, and returned to their camp in a bleeding condition. A military picquet went into the town to escort back to camp any men who had not returned. On the roll being called it was ascertained that a certain number of men were still absent, and at the same time firing was heard in the town. Whilst on the bridge shots were fired at the troops by civilians, and some soldiers, exasperated by the assaults on their comrades, broke out of camp with their rifles. The casualties, so far as is known, are one soldier wounded, one civilian killed, and another wounded. An inquiry is being held to ascertain the full facts.
I may add, for the information of the hon. Gentleman, that the inquest, which is being held, was adjourned until Monday next.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will renew the question when the inquest is over.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT (IRELAND).

Mr. ARCHDALE: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how much land has been purchased in Ulster to date under
the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act; and how many ex-soldiers have been settled on the land?

Mr. HENRY: The Local Government Board have made six schemes for the provision of cottages and plots for 157 ex-service men in Ulster. These schemes cannot be further considered until the expiration of the statutory period for lodging objections, and no land can be taken until the objections have been considered and the schemes either confirmed as they stand or modified to meet objections. Three further schemes are also being prepared. No land has yet been acquired in Ulster by the Estates Commissioners for the provision of holdings for ex-service men, the powers of the Commissioners being limited to the purchase of untenanted land, and of this class of land there is very little in Ulster. If my hon. Friend can furnish the Commissioners with particulars of any land in Ulster which can be acquired for division into holdings for ex-service men, the Commissioners will be pleased to consider their acquisition. In the division of untenanted lands acquired by the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts in Ulster they have already provided for 13 ex-service men.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) ACT.

Major O'NEILL: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, the Local Government Board have power to grant applications from ex-Service men in Ireland for allotments in cases where housing accommodation is not required; and, if not, will he introduce legislation to give them such power?

Mr. HENRY: Under the Act referred to, the Land Commission have power to provide holdings for ex-Service men either with or without housing accommodation, whilst the powers of the Local Government Board are confined to providing cottages with plots attached. If by allotments my hon. and gallant Friend means small plots of ground let by the season, such plots can be provided by local authorities under the Local Government Board's Allotments and Land Cultivation (Ireland) Act, 1917. In the circumstances there seems no immediate necessity for legislation.

Major O'NEILL: Could not the Local Government Board be given power to give plots without cottages in circumstances where the men who want them have housing accommodation, where under the present Act they can give plots with houses?

Mr. HENRY: The necessity in the case of men who have neither house nor land is so much greater than in the case of men who already have comfortable houses that they must wait the provision of the others.

Major O'NEILL: Was not the object of the Act to settle on the land those men who had served in the War, but wished to have this land to make use of?

Mr. HENRY: Yes; but the powers taken by the Act apply only to the provision of cottages.

EASTERN SIBERIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present situation in Eastern Siberia and the maritime province; whether Japan has declared war upon the Soviet Government; whether Japan proposes to set up a protectorate or to accept a mandate for any part of Eastern Siberia or the maritime province; whether there is an agreement between the Japanese Government and the Allies as to Japanese action in these regions; and, if so, what is it?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): With regard to the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member on 13th April; the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the third part of the question is that, so far as His Majesty's Government is aware, the Japanese Government have no such intentions. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand from the answer to the fourth part of the question that there is no agreement between the Imperial
Japanese Government and the Allies, and that Japan is acting entirely on her own initiative?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said the answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET TROOPS IN CAUCASUS.

Lieut-Colonel BURGOYNE: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding a concentration of Soviet Russian troops in the Caucasus and Southern Russia with a view to threatening Armenia, Cilicia, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the surrounding countries; and, if so, what steps have been taken of a military or diplomatic nature by the Governments of France, Italy, and Great Britain to counter this threat?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is known that there are a considerable number of Soviet Russian troops in Southern Russia and the Caucasus, but no specific information as to their purpose and objective is available. All possibilities are being considered, with a view to taking whatever diplomatic or military steps may appear to be called for.

ECONOMIC TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES.

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America have concluded, or entered into, economic treaties with the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether he will state the terms of such treaties?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no such treaties have been concluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the economic pourparlers between the Scandinavian Powers and Soviet Russia?

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question which asks whether the American Government have entered into negotiations for economic relations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the answer is intended to cover that point.
We are not aware of any such trans-actions.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it a fact that 200 locomotives have already been delivered?

COMMISSION (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).

Lord R. CECIL: 52.
asked whether any reply has been received from the Soviet Government of Russia to the proposal that a Commission of the League of Nations should visit that country; and, if not, whether the British Government will urge the Council of the League to press for a reply without further delay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I will take steps to have the proposal of my Noble Friend brought before the Council of the League.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Had the conditions laid down by the Council anything to do with the refusal of the Soviet Government to receive this commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can hardly give an answer as to the reasons for not replying when we have not had a reply.

Captain W. BENN: Can we have published the terms on which we propose to send this commission to Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not we, but the League of Nations who are sending the commission.

Captain BENN: Is it impossible for this House to ascertain the terms on which the commission is sent?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend will put down a question on the subject I will get him an answer.

Mr. BILLING: Is the League to defray the cost or are we?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The League.

SYRIA, PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA.

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, subject to the approval of the British Government, France is prepared to recognise a united state of
Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia under the governance of Emir Feisul, subject to Anglo-French control; and what is the present attitude of the Foreign Office in regard to this suggestion, which unites the majority of the Syrian peoples?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The view of the French Government on this proposal is not known. In any case the suggestion has not the approval of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ANTI-JEWISH RIOTS, JERUSALEM.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky has been sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude; whether this is the gentleman who was largely instrumental in raising the 38th Royal Fusiliers, which fought in Palestine by the side of British regiments; on what charge was he tried; what was the composition of the Court; whether any appeal will be allowed; and whether any Arabs or Christians have been tried in connection with the recent disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. KILEY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government sent instructions a few months ago to the British administration in Palestine that they were to regard. the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an accomplished fact; whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky, who raised the first Jewish regiment to fight in the British Army in Palestine, was sentenced a few days ago by a British court-martial to 15 years' penal servitude according to the Ottoman penal code; and whether he will explain the reason for basing the sentence upon this code, in view of the Government's declared policy concerning Palestine?

Mr. SPOOR: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any information indicating a lack of sympathy on the part of the British military administration in Palestine with the Government's declared policy of establishing in that country a Jewish national home; and whether he can say when the military administration will be exchanged for a civil administration in order that
practical steps may be taken without delay to carry out the Government's repeated promise?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 38.
asked the Prime Minister the nature and composition of the inquiry that is being held into the recent disturbances in Jerusalem; and whether it is being conducted in public?

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 61.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the statement that Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky had been condemned in Jerusalem to 15 years' penal servitude; and, if so, whether, in view of Mr. Jabotinsky's services during the War, he will have inquiries made as to the circumstances which have caused such a sentence?

Sir WILLIAM WHITLA: 124
asked the Secretary of State for War and Air (1) whether the recent outbreaks of disorder in Jerusalem were preceded by anti-Jewish political demonstrations in that city; whether he has any information to the effect that such demonstrations were worked up by agents from Egypt;
(2) on how many days between the 1st and 10th April rioting took place at Jerusalem between Mahommedans and Jews; what was the total number of casualities in the two communities, respectively; whether any damage was done to religious edifices or private property; if so, has any estimate been made of the amount of the damage; will any compensation be paid; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 128.
asked the Secretary for War and Air whether the British military authorities in Palestine were warned beforehand by the Zionist Commission that anti-Jewish excesses were probable at the time of the Nebi. Moussa festival; why these warnings were disregarded by the chief military administrator; and whether the formation of a Jewish self-defence corps was amply justified under the circumstances?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR and AIR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to answer. I am not yet in possession of full details of recent events in Jerusalem, but from abridged reports which have been received by the War Office it appears that disturbances commenced in
Jerusalem on the 4th April, on the occasion of the annual Moslem pilgrimage to Nebi Musa, and quickly developed into anti-Jewish riots. As the native police proved unreliable they were removed, control of the city handed over to British troops, and martial law declared. Spasmodic anti-Jewish outbreaks occurred up till the 8th April, from which date the situation became normal. Disturbances appear to have been confined to Jerusalem, and did not extend to the country villages. I regret to say that about 250 casualties occurred, of which nine-tenths were Jewish.

I am not in a position to state what actual damage occurred in the city, but there were, undoubtedly, certain cases of arson. As the House will realise, these events took place among Eastern people, and feeling appears to have run high. On such an occasion, there is no doubt but that both Moslems and Jews represented to the British Administration that the other was at fault, but in this connection a military Court of Inquiry has been constituted to inquire into the causes which led up to the disturbances. This Court does not sit in public, but religious heads of all denominations have been invited to attend or to send representatives.

The chief offenders have been tried before a military Court, and heavy sentences imposed. Jabotinsky was sentenced to 15 years' penal servititude for the crimes of possessing firearms, instigation to disobedience by arming the populace, conspiracy and preparing means to carry out acts of riot, while 19 other Jews, convicted of being in possession of firearms, were each sentenced to three years' penal servitude. Two Moslems, convicted of the rape of two Jewish women, were each sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude, and seven other Moslems, arrested in possession of firearms, are awaiting trial. The above prisoners, including Jabotinsky, are now confined as second division prisoners at Acre. They are confined to prison, but will be excused all hard labour and prison fare.

With regard to the whole affair, including the above sentences, as I told the House on the 27th instant, I am in direct communication with Lord Allenby, and I regret I have not yet received his answer, and further questions by hon. Members which are not covered by this
statement must remain unanswered until I am in full possession of the facts.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Is this Jabotinsky the same gentleman who raised the Jewish Battalion, the 38th Royal Fusiliers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will any appeal be allowed against this decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that the whole matter is being considered, and that I am asking for further information.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY:: Does the Government intend to send out a Commission of inquiry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is much more reasonable to await the full report of the Governor, Lord Allenby. When we know what were the full reasons which actuated the court-martial, and the full opinion of the responsible authorities we shall be able to form an opinion about it, but, of course, in the ultimate issue it must be His Majesty's Government that must bear the responsibility of taking the final decision in such a matter.

Mr. SPOOR:: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question as to when the existing military administration will be replaced by civil administration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot do that, but I hope it may be as early as possible.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Jabotinsky is a purely Jewish resident, of Jewish descent, in Jerusalem?

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how soon the native police were replaced by British soldiers; whether rioting was allowed to go on for a day or two before any such replacement began or whether it was done immediately; and whether a precisely similar sentence to that passed on Mr. Jabotinsky has been passed upon Moslems for the rape of Jewish women?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question, if it is suggested that the British authorities deliberately connived at a state of disorder amounting to a pogrom against the Jewish population, the suggestion is entirely
without foundation. I cannot say exactly at what stage the native police were relieved, but I am quite certain they were relieved at the moment when the authorities on the spot thought that the state of disorder could be most speedily terminated by such action. So far as the comparison between the two sentences is concerned, I am awaiting telegraphic reports, which we have asked for, as it would be very improper for me, without any such information, to attempt to draw conclusions from the apparent anomalous discrepancies which may appear in these cases.

Colonel WEDGWOOD:: Is it not a fact that this Committee of inquiry is to inquire into the question of the preparations against this pogrom that might have been made in consequence of warnings given to the administration, and whether, if that is so, it is not unusual to appoint on the Committee the very people whose conduct is being inquired into?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is so; the officers appointed—General Palin (President), Brigadier - General Wildblood, and a Colonel from the 3rd Division—I speak from the information I have at the moment—are not the officers concerned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do they not belong to the same trade union?

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire whether or not, as alleged, any warning was given to the British authorities that a riot of this kind was in preparation, and whether they took the steps they did take in consequence of that information?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly will make further inquiries. The matter does require full inquiry; but I am very much predisposed to the belief that our officers on the spot did their best under the circumstances. Further review of the whole circumstances by the Government may result in additional remedial measures being taken.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the satisfaction with which the Balfour declaration concerning the status of Palestine (which has been confirmed by France, Italy, America, and other Allied Powers) was received by the oppressed and persecuted Jewish peoples in Poland
and other parts of the globe; and whether he will press for an early decision of the Palestine question by the Supreme Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer given on the 27th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Bedwelty.

EMIR FEISUL.

Colonel ASHLEY: 40.
asked whether Emir Feisul has been in receipt of a subsidy from the British Government; whether this subsidy has been continued since the proclamation of Emir Feisul as King of Syria, including Palestine; and whether the British Government has informed or intends to inform Emir Feisul that it will not permit him to exercise any controlling authority over Palestine?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No payment has been made towards the administrative expenses of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration East since the 1st January, 1920. Before that date a subsidy was paid towards the expenses of the Arab Administration, but no personal subsidy was paid to the Emir Feisul. The question of the Emir's future status can only be decided by the Peace Conference to which he has been invited.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the Government send Lord French to Palestine?

JEWS (RESTORATION).

Mr. PALMER: 47.
asked whether the fact that Great Britain has become a mandatory power under the League of Nations for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine will involve any new charge upon the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The assumption of a mandate for Palestine by this country would not necessarily involve any new charge upon the taxpayers. It is impossible to state whether or not it may be found necessary hereafter to ask Parliament to approve any expenditure from Votes in connection with this mandate.

Captain W. BENN: Are these mandates properly conferred by the Supreme Council or only properly conferred by the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I presume that my hon. Friend has read the Treaty. They can be properly conferred by the Council of the Allies, but they have to be confirmed by the League of Nations.

Mr. BILLING: How long is it proposed to keep in existence this Gilbertian league?

TREATIES OF PEACE.

GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister what steps had been taken to complete the disarmament of Germany in accordance with the Peace Treaty; and whether any final date for this has been fixed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Germany is charged with the carrying out of the disarmament Clauses of the Peace Treaty. No final date for the completion of this work has been fixed.

Viscount CURZON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now in possession of any information as to war material discovered by the French armies by the extension of the Mayence bridgehead; if so, whether any statement can be made with reference to it; and can it be stated whether the Government have any reason to think that war material is being or has been concealed from the Allied misions in Germany?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Inquiries have been made in Paris, and the French authorities are obtaining the necessary information.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

LABOUR LAWS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of similarity of labour legislation in the different Colonies and Dominions compared with the labour laws in this country is a suitable subject for discussion by the international labour section of the League of Nations, or, if not, what arrangements exist to ensure that labour in our Colonies and Dominions is not more severely treated than labour in this country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would point out that the self-governing Dominions, Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa are original members of the International Labour Organisation. As regards the Colonies, I would refer the
hon. and gallant Member to Article 421 of the Peace Treaty.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we be assured that the leaders of the Winnipeg strike will not be subjected to treatment more harsh than would be given in this country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we can trust the Canadian Government to fulfil their obligations towards any Treaty to which they are a party.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will the British Government make representations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given covers that. If there is any want of faith in the proper conduct of the self-governing Dominions it will be a very bad look-out for the Empire.

PALACE AT GENEVA.

Mr. HALLAS: 50.
asked what will be the cost of the palace of the League of Nations which is to be erected at Geneva, and how the expenditure is to be allocated among the nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I am aware, no plan has yet been made for the erection of such a palace. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

LAND ACQUISITION.

Major PRESCOTT: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the expediency of giving directions to the Government valuers to assist local authorities in their negotiations for the acquisition of land for public purposes as distinct from housing purposes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot see my way at the present time to give directions to the Inland Revenue Valuation Department in the sense suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. The work of that Department and the services which it should be called upon to render in future are being carefully considered by the Government.

Major NALL: Is the House to understand that in the meantime through the abolition of its duties this Department is doing nothing at all?

Mr. BALDWIN: There is a question down on Tuesday for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the answer to that.

TRANSPORT.

LONDON TRAFFIC AUTHORITY.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the House of Commons last Thursday declining to take any action in respect to the suspension of Standing Order 22 for the purposes of the London County Council tramway scheme, he will state what steps he proposes to take to relieve the congestion in London traffic?

Sir PARK GOFF: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, prior to the discussion of the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport, or during it, he will be able to make a statement of the policy of the Government for the relief of the congestion of traffic in London?

Mr. J. JONES: 32.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, to the effect that it would be sanguine to hope that Parliament would be able in the present Session to deal with a Bill creating a London Traffic Board, and that a number of years might very well pass by before it could settle the question of its statutory powers, whether he will explain why, in view of the strongly expressed opinion of the House and public in favour of London traffic being dealt with on comprehensive lines, he anticipates exceptional delay; and whether the machinery of committees established by the House would rapidly deal with the questión at issue?

Mr. HOLMES: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the preference of the House for deferring any action in respect to the retention of the local veto by boroughs until the London Traffic Authority can be set up, he proposes to expedite legislation to that end?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the proposed establishment of a London Traffic Authority was explained by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, in reply to the hon. Member for
Southwark (Central) in this House on Monday, 26th April, and I am not in a position at present to add anything further on the subject.

ANTI-DUMPING BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce and pass into law an Anti-Dumping Bill before the House adjourns in August?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government at an early date.

Mr. E. WOOD: Would it be possible to make a statement before Whitsuntide?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It will be impossible so soon as that to give a general outline of what we hope to carry through.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM PROPOSALS).

Major STEEL: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to intro duce legislation to reform the Second Chamber during the present Session; and, if not, whether it is intended to hold an Autumn Session for the purpose of dealing with this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leyton East on the 26th instant.

AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Captain FITZROY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere to their expressed intention of introducing and passing into law this Session legislation giving effect to the agricultural policy of the Government; and whether he can now give a date for its introduction?

Captain TERRELL: 119.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Oxfordshire executive of the National Farmers' Union has passed a resolution viewing with alarm the delay in introducing the promised Bill on agriculture, and that at the meeting it was suggested
that the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley had given them to understand that it was doubtful if it would be introduced this Session at all; and whether, under these circumstances, he can now make any definite statement on the intentions of the Government in this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to my previous replies on this subject.

Captain FITZROY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had a similar answer to similar questions for the last six months, and that it is creating a great feeling of uncertainty among the agricultural industry, and also a great feeling of mistrust in the value of Government promises?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of the feeling referred to by my hon. Friend, and I certainly hope the Bill will be introduced very shortly. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of mistrust in Government promises.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the Bill even in draft yet?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will this Bill apply to Scotland?

ENEMY DEBTS.

Sir J. D. REES: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the German Clearing Office will be established, in view of the delay which has occurred in the payment of enemy debts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridge man): I have been asked to reply. The German Government has not yet notified the establishment of its Clearing Office; but it is understood that the Office was opened on the 26th instant and the official notification is expected shortly.

HOUSING.

LUXURY BUILDINGS.

Sir J. D. REES: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether the anti-luxury building policy will be so enforced as to save exist-
ing contracts and commitments; and whether this policy will be exactly defined in order to prevent the disastrous consequences likely to result to legitimate private enterprise if it is not interpreted with strict limitations and with due regard to the admitted failure of previous official interference with the law of supply and demand and the requirements of the community?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, makes special provision with regard to cases where non-fulfilment of a contract is due to compliance with a prohibition order made by a local authority.

HOUSING SCHEMES (FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES).

Mr. WALLACE: 62.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the continued serious shortage of housing accommodation and the grave financial difficulties arising in connection with housing schemes all over the country, he will grant an early day of Parliamentary time to discuss the whole question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to comply with the hon. Member's suggestion. An opportunity for such discussion may possibly occur on the Estimates for the Ministry of Health.

SAN REMO CONFERENCE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, when proceeding to the San Remo Conference, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was conveyed to France by a special boat, the "Biarritz," one of the newest and largest Channel steamers, the party consisting of only 26 persons, many of whom were servants and secretaries; that, for the purpose of making this journey, the "Biarritz" was taken off her regular duty of transporting and bringing home troops; and that she returned empty from France; whether on the same day His Majesty the King of Sweden travelled to France by the ordinary passenger service; whether Admiral Earl Beatty and Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson travelled to France for the purpose of attending the San Remo Conference also by the ordinary passenger service; and whether, having regard to the Government's plea for national economy, it is proposed to charge
the Secretary of State personally with the cost of the special facilities in question, together with compensation for the dislocation of the ordinary trooping work of the "Biarritz"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Special facilities were necessary in order to enable the British delegation to reach Paris in time to travel by the special train which was conveying the French delegation to San Remo, and the s.s. "Biarritz" was used for this purpose. At the last moment Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson and his staff found it necessary to go to Paris earlier than had been anticipated, and Admiral Earl Beatty was detained in Scotland and was unable, as originally provided for, to travel with his staff in the "Biarritz." This reduced the number to 28 persons with the necessary archives and office appliances. I am informed that the s.s. "Biarritz" was, on the date in question, a stand-by steamer to maintain the passenger service from England to France in case of a break-down or in case the number of troops to be conveyed from England to France was in excess of the number which could be conveyed by the ordinary boat. As the boat was not required for either of these purposes on the date in question, it was available for the journey of the Peace delegation.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary cross-channel steamer left for Calais within three minutes of this boat leaving and that yesterday the same scandal occurred in connection with the return of the Prime Minister?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot agree with the description of my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised that he should raise a question of this character. Surely it is very natural that special arrangements should be made for a delegation of this character.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 56.
asked what arrangements have been made for the future of Cilicia; whether the French are still in occupation under the agreement by which they took over the country from us; whether they have now refused to accept a mandate for Cilicia; whether they accept responsibility in any form for the maintenance of law and order there; if not, what steps will be taken to safeguard the inhabitants from such
massacres and outrages as recently occurred at Marash and are now threatening at Hadjin, Aintab, Sis, and other towns; and will His Majesty's Government afford protection to the large number of refugees who were sent back to Cilicia from places of safety by the British authorities?

Mr. WOOD: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been arranged at San Remo that Cilicia shall remain a part of the Turkish Empire; if so, is it considered that measures can be taken to secure the lives and liberties of the inhabitants; and what are the circumstances which indicate that such measures will prove a success in Cilicia when they have proved a failure in every other country under Turkish rule?

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make a general statement on the results of the meeting of the Supreme Council at San Remo?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what are the decisions of the San Remo Conference regarding the future of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, respectively; where the northern boundary of Palestine has been fixed; and whether steps will now be taken to replace the present military administrations in Palestine and Mesopotamia by civil administrations, in order that the declared policies of the Allies may be commenced.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which is to be made to-day by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMY).

Colonel NEWMAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the taxpayers' demand that the number of Departments and of highly paid officials to run them should be drastically reduced has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that economy can best be effected, not by reducing the number of clerks and typewriters or other subordinates, but by dismissing the highly paid heads of redundant Government Departments; and what action he is taking to save the taxpayers' money in this respect?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is fully aware of the necessity of effecting economies in every possible direction, and the question of reducing the number of officials, whether lowly or highly paid, has received, and will continue to receive, close attention.

Colonel NEWMAN: When shall we have the result of what is going on?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We are having the result already, and a very good result.

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a Return showing the number of officials with salaries and emoluments amounting to £2,000 per annum and upwards at present employed in Government Departments that are included in the Civil Service Estimates; and a Return giving the number of officials drawing salaries of £1,000 per annum and upwards who were employed in Government Departments included in the Civil Service Estimates in the financial year 1914–15?

Mr. BALDWIN: Steps will be taken to compile the figures requested. They will be furnished to the hon. and gallant Member in due course, and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

CILICIA.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked what were the terms upon which we handed over Cilicia to the French in or about last November; whether, in doing so, we stipulated that protection should be given to the refugees whom we had sent back to Cilicia from places of safety, or to the inhabitants generally; what were the reasons which induced us so to hand over the province; and what advantages we gained by so doing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Cilicia was handed over in accordance with our agreement with the French by which responsibility for certain spheres was divided between the two countries. As regards the second part of the question, each country accepted responsibility for the security and well-being of the inhabitants committed to its charge within the means at its disposal. As regards the last part of the question, we merely carried out our diplomatic obligations. If, however, we had retained the province it would have involved the maintenance of a very large
force additional to that already employed in policing portions of the late Turkish Empire.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (DISPOSAL BOARD).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Colonel Spurrier, of the Disposal Board, himself negotiated the sale of the St. Omer dump with Messrs. Leyland Brothers; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take to prevent any future abuses of the customs and traditions of the Civil Service?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Colonel Spurrier only so far negotiated the sale to Leyland Motors in that he carried out the express instructions of Mr. Dawson and the Minister of Munitions on the subject.

Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the statements made last week that Colonel Spurrier went to St. Omer in order to arrange for the sale of this dump to a firm of which his brother was chairman, and took a considerable part in suggesting what goods should be included in the contract, will the right hon. Gentleman give an early date for the discussion of the whole question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend has, I fancy, forgotten what I have told him on the last occasion—that the initiative in asking firms is on the express instructions of the Minister of Munitions himself. Colonel Spurrier acted as a subordinate, and had no say whatever in the terms of the contract. I would venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that each of these public servants has probably as tender a regard for his own reputation as any of us, and in the case especially of a gallant officer who served in the War, as Colonel Spurrier did, it is not too much to ask that persons should make investigations before indulging in insinuations.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it or is it not a fact that the Ministry of Munitions sent Colonel Spurrier to effect this sale with Messrs. Leyland Brothers? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment on Monday night.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to rebuke Members
of this House for putting down questions which they feel it their honest duty to put down?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not know I rebuked him, but I did venture to express my own opinion, because I think it is incumbent on the head of the Government, or whoever is acting for him, to protect public servants when he thinks they are unjustly attacked.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that there has been no word of imputation regarding this officer, but simply the question of broad principle as to whether a public servant shall sell goods to his brother?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I am afraid it went further than that. Whether it was intended or not, the question did suggest that special use was made by this gentleman of his position in the Ministry of Munitions to help his relatives.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Could not questions of this kind be referred to the Select Committee on National Expenditure before being raised in this House?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will stop hon. Members from selling to one another?

SUBSIDENCE COMPENSATION.

Mr. WALLACE: 59.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet been able to arrange for the introduction of an agreed Bill dealing with compensation for subsidence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. Consideration of this question has not yet reached a stage at which I can make a definite statement about the introduction of legislation.

LICENSING BILL.

Colonel ROUNDELL: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to bring in the Licensing Bill before the summer adjournment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that this will not be possible.

GRANTS TO NAVAL OFFICERS (TAXATION).

Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the special grants to officers of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in respect to prize money and the special scheme for retirement will be subject to taxation; and, if so, whether they will be considered to be earned or unearned income?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

BUDGET PROPOSALS.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the equivalent profits tax required if levied on all trading profits to yield a return equal to the estimated receipts in the coming financial year from the Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax combined; and whether he is aware that such a tax, if levied on a graduated basis, whilst yielding the same revenue, would less injuriously affect ex-service men who are attempting to reestablish themselves in civil life than the proposed Excess Profits Tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: A tax of the character suggested by the hon. Member could not be productive of any appreciable amount of revenue in the course of the current financial year. It is estimated, however, that in order to produce an amount equal to the yield in a full year of the Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax at the rates at present proposed, the tax suggested would have to be levied at an average rate of approximately 5s. 6d. in the £. The hon. Member will recall that I undertook yesterday, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the question of granting further relief to small businesses, in connection with the proposed increase in the rate of the Excess Profits Duty, should be considered before the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. LAMBERT: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is in-
tended to provide that Schedule D assessments for the year 1920–21 shall be self-contained instead of being based upon a three years' average; and, if so, whether he will provide for the extension of the date at which farmers, whose accounts are frequently made up to Lady Day, must elect between Schedule B and Schedule D from 5th June, the date at present fixed, to a date after the Finance Act, 1920, has become law?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not my intention to propose any alteration for the current year (1920–21) in the statutory basis of Income Tax assessment under Schedule D.

PREFERENCE SHARE DIVIDENDS.

Mr. SWAN: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the fixed dividends on companies' preference shares are frequently as high as 15 per cent.; and whether he proposes that the concession which he announced would be made to companies in respect of their debenture interest and fixed preference dividends should apply to dividends at a higher rate than 7 per cent.?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is proposed that if in any case the Corporation Profits Tax exceeds a sum equivalent to 2s. in the £ on the profits which remain after payment of interest and dividends payable at a fixed rate on existing issues of debentures and preference shares, the excess of the charge over that sum shall be remitted. My right hon. Friend does not propose to limit the application of this concession to issues on which the fixed rate of interest does not exceed 7 per cent.

CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.

Mr. SWAN: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is a common practice of companies to create large reserve funds and to make issues of bonus shares; that persons liable to Super-tax escape taxation on their proportions of undistributed profits or on profits distributed by way of issues of bonus shares; whether the proposed Corporation Profits Tax will compensate for the loss to the Inland Revenue of Super-tax on undivided profits; and whether he proposes to exempt co-operative societies from the Corporation Profits Tax, in view of the fact that their members are not as a rule liable to Super-tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the circumstances referred to in the first and second parts of the hon. Member' question. While, however, the Corporation Profits Tax may be regarded in some measure as a composition in lieu of Super-tax, it is not justified solely on that ground, and I do not propose to exempt co-operative societies with limited liabilities from the operation of the tax.

FOREIGN INVESTMENTS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of income arising from foreign investments to which residents in this country are entitled, Income Tax in this country is assessed on the income arising from such investments after deducting there-from the foreign taxes thereon; and whether the Report of the Income Tax Commission recommends that this practice should be continued.

Mr. BALDWIN: The proposal which the Royal Commission on the Income Tax has put forward, and which the Government has adopted, for dealing with the problem of double Income Tax within the British Empire, contemplates that where income is taxed twice in the Empire the lower of the two taxes shall be remitted. A necessary corollary to this proposal for the elimination of double taxation is that the United Kingdom Income Tax on income derived from a Dominion shall be based, not as at present on the amount of the income, less the Dominion tax paid thereon, but on the full income without such deduction. In computing, for the purposes of United Kingdom Income Tax, the amount of income arising abroad outside the Empire, the deduction in respect of taxes paid in the place where the income has arisen will continue to be allowed. The Royal Commission does not recommend any change in the existing situation as to double taxation, so far as foreign States are concerned.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my hon Friend aware that, possibly owing to my misfortune, he has entirely misapprehended the nature of my question, which dealt, not with investments in our dominions, but with foreign investments, such as investments in America?

Mr. BALDWIN: That was answered in the latter part of the reply.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that in taxing the income from foreign investments, the foreign tax is not deducted before imposing the tax chargeable by this country?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be good enough to read the reply.

LAND VALUES DUTIES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total revenue derived from Land Value Duties since their institution, and the total expenditure incurred in connection with the Department; what is the estimated expenditure under this head for the current year; the total number of the staff employed; and for what duties it is now proposed to employ this staff?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer by hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given on this subject on the 26th and 27th instant. I am causing copies of these replies to be furnished to him. The staff of the Inland Revenue Valuation Department numbers 1242, while the number of the staff engaged at head office on the assessment and collection of the three duties which it is proposed to repeal is some 25.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. gentleman reply to the last part of the question, which apparently has not been asked by anybody else, namely, on what duties it is proposed to employ this staff?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refer to an answer I gave earlier, in which I stated that questions would be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, when he is going to make a statement on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: Why are questions to be answered on Tuesday, and not the questions handed in two or three days ago for to-day?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely occupied over the Budget for some days past, and requires some time.

Captain W. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if all members of the Government are united in abandoning the principle of the taxation of land values?

VOTE OF CREDIT ASSETS (SALE).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the proceeds of the sales of Vote of Credit assets which were treated as Appropriation in Aid by the Ministries of Munitions and Shipping and other Departments, and the amounts received by each Department, respectively?

Mr. BALDWIN: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the financial year 1919–20. The amounts authorised by Parliament to be appropriated in aid of Departmental Votes in 1919–20 were shown on the Estimates of the Departments concerned.
The accounts for 1919–20 are not yet finally complete, but the actual amounts derived from Vote of Credit assets appropriated in aid are estimated to have been as follows:



£


Ministry of Munitions
153,000,000


War Office
57,750,000


Admiralty
15,500,000


Board of Agriculture (Tractors: horses and outfits)
1,966,000


In the case of the Ministry of Shipping, receipts from other sources such as freights more than covered the amounts appropriated in aid, and the entire receipts from the sale of ships, amounting to £54,000,000, were paid over to the Exchequer.

SIBERIAN BANK.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are in a position to accept tenders from persons other than the person with whom they are now negotiating for the sale of the shares owned by the Government in the Siberian Bank?

Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I cannot add anything to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer on the 27th instant.

Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman state that he is absolutely unable to say whether he is open to receive tenders from any other quarter?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are always open to receive tenders and are very pleased to do so.

Mr. SCOTT: May I ask how other persons are able to tender if the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to say how many shares are held by the Government in this bank or to give any other information with regard to it?

Mr. BALDWIN: When negotiations are completed it will no doubt be possible to furnish particulars.

Mr. SCOTT: If persons outside the House are able to get information from the Government, why cannot Members of this House get information from the Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not quite follow the point of the hon. Member. The whole object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in negotiating is that while negotiations are in progress the facts connected with those negotiations should not be made public. It would prejudice all negotiations to give information to Members in full or in such a way that it would get into the Press and be spread throughout the country.

Mr. SCOTT: How can it prejudice negotiations to state how many shares the Government hold and how many are for sale?

Mr. BALDWIN: If we made any statement as to that, further details would be asked for. No publication of any details will satisfy my hon. Friend unless he gets the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a public declaration of facts which he says he cannot give.

Mr. SCOTT: I will put down a further question about it.

WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of persons holding war savings certificates to the limit allowed, namely £500; and if he will consider extending the limit of the amount to be held by each individual, so that a large capital sum might be raised to reduce the floating debt?

Mr. BALDWIN: The number of £500 certificates issued is 152,673; but it is not possible without undue expenditure of time and labour to obtain exact figures of the number of persons holding 500
certificates by aggregating several certificates of smaller denominations. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently stated, he is not prepared to raise the limit of £500 for tax-free certificates.

BEER (SALE IN NEW YORK).

Sir J. D. REES: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the State of New York has legalised the sale of beer in hotels, clubs, and restaurants?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have received no official information to this effect.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire as this matter is as important as any with which he to deal?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will do so.

FLAX IMPORTATION.

Mr. STURROCK: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps the Government is taking to facilitate the importation of raw flax into the United Kingdom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. Kellaway) I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, Russia is the principal source of flax. As regards Soviet Russia, the hon. Member is cognisant of the negotiations which have recently taken place with a view to re-opening trade relations, and should these mature, there is a probability of securing certain stocks from that country. The Baltic States constitute the other principal source, and the British Commissioner has been instructed to expedite the export of flax from those parts. A commercial commissioner has been attached to the British Mission, and one of his main duties will be to facilitate this trade.

EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Wallasey Educa-
tion Authority in their two secondary schools have only 12½ per cent. of free places in the Grammar School and 10 per cent. in the High School, that they refuse to extend the number of free places, and that the fees have been raised by £1 1s. per term; and if he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take so that the children attending the elementary schools who are fitted, and whose parents are unable to pay the fee, can be given a secondary education?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The percentages of free places required by the Board in the Wallasey Grammar School and the Wallasey High School for Girls are as stated in the question. I have not been informed that the local education authority refuse to increase the number of free places beyond the Board's requirements, but, if this is so, their decision is probably due to the fact that they propose to open, in September next, free secondary schools for about 360 boys and 360 girls. This extensive provision of free accommodation appears to render it unnecessary for me to take any action at present with regard to the percentage of free places at the existing schools. As regards the fees charged at those schools, the Board have received an application from the authority for their approval of the increase mentioned in the question, and the matter is under consideration.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that in one instance there were 25 per cent. of free places, and why this differentiation in secondary schools of the same type?

DARLASTON PARISH SCHOOL (COAL SUPPLY).

Mr. A. SHORT: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Darlaston parish church school was recently closed for some days owing to shortage of coal supplies; and, if so, will he take action to ensure the school being properly heated?

Mr. LEWIS: I am informed that the school was closed for a day and a half on the 14th and 15th instant for the reason stated. The matter is, in the first instance, one for the local education authority to deal with, and I have no doubt that they are doing their best to secure a regular supply of coal.

SCHOOL ERECTION, WALBERSWICK, SUFFOLK.

Mr. BRIANT: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Education if plans have been submitted and accepted for the building of a school to cost between £3,000 and £4,000 for the accommodation of 40 children in Walberswick, Suffolk; considering the urgent need for the erection of houses, whether the building of the school can be postponed; why is the building hitherto used no longer suitable; and what would be the approximate cost of putting it into a condition which would render it available for some years?

Mr. LEWIS: The Walberswick Church of England School was closed on 13th February, 1917, since the building had become unsafe for further use and the managers were unable to effect the necessary repairs. A week later the local education authority opened a provided school in temporary premises pending the possibility of providing new buildings, first of all in the Primitive Methodist schoolroom, and subsequently in the Congregational Mission room. This is a single room, and there is no playground attached to it, and it is unsuitable for more than emergency use. In January of this year the authority submitted plans for a permanent school. These are now under consideration, and in view of the great cost of the proposal, the Board are making inquiries of the local education authority as to the possibility of reducing it.

SOVIET PROPAGANDA.

Mr. BILLING: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the statements which are being circulated that the Soviets have organised a Red Army in Great Britain; whether it is stated that enrolment has been brisk, that training with dummy weapons is now proceeding, that the organisation has been started with money brought from overseas, that Wales and the Clyde are the chief centres, and that it is the intention of this Red Army to hold a great demonstration throughout the country on 1st May; whether the Government propose to proclaim this demonstration or to permit it, and if he will say whether the political freedom of this country permits the hoisting, saluting, and recognition of the Republican flag?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not been able to receive confirmation of any of the statements mentioned in the question.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to whether the political freedom of this country permits the hoisting, saluting, and recognition of the Republican flag?

EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Wallasey Educa-
tion Authority in their two secondary schools have only 12½ per cent. of free places in the Grammar School and 10 per cent. in the High School, that they refuse to extend the number of free places, and that the fees have been raised by £1 1s. per term; and if he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take so that the children attending the elementary schools who are fitted, and whose parents are unable to pay the fee, can be given a secondary education?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The percentages of free places required by the Board in the Wallasey Grammar School and the Wallasey High School for Girls are as stated in the question. I have not been informed that the local education authority refuse to increase the number of free places beyond the Board's requirements, but, if this is so, their decision is probably due to the fact that they propose to open, in September next, free secondary schools for about 360 boys and 360 girls. This extensive provision of free accommodation appears to render it unnecessary for me to take any action at present with regard to the percentage of free places at the existing schools. As regards the fees charged at those schools, the Board have received an application from the authority for their approval of the increase mentioned in the question, and the matter is under consideration.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that in one instance there were 25 per cent. of free places, and why this differentiation in secondary schools of the same type?

DARLASTON PARISH SCHOOL (COAL SUPPLY).

Mr. A. SHORT: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Darlaston parish church school was recently closed for some days owing to shortage of coal supplies; and, if so, will he take action to ensure the school being properly heated?

Mr. LEWIS: I am informed that the school was closed for a day and a half on the 14th and 15th instant for the reason stated. The matter is, in the first instance, one for the local education authority to deal with, and I have no doubt that they are doing their best to secure a regular supply of coal.

SCHOOL ERECTION, WALBERSWICK, SUFFOLK.

Mr. BRIANT: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Education if plans have been submitted and accepted for the building of a school to cost between £3,000 and £4,000 for the accommodation of 40 children in Walberswick, Suffolk; considering the urgent need for the erection of houses, whether the building of the school can be postponed; why is the building hitherto used no longer suitable; and what would be the approximate cost of putting it into a condition which would render it available for some years?

Mr. LEWIS: The Walberswick Church of England School was closed on 13th February, 1917, since the building had become unsafe for further use and the managers were unable to effect the necessary repairs. A week later the local education authority opened a provided school in temporary premises pending the possibility of providing new buildings, first of all in the Primitive Methodist schoolroom, and subsequently in the Congregational Mission room. This is a single room, and there is no playground attached to it, and it is unsuitable for more than emergency use. In January of this year the authority submitted plans for a permanent school. These are now under consideration, and in view of the great cost of the proposal, the Board are making inquiries of the local education authority as to the possibility of reducing it.

SOVIET PROPAGANDA.

Mr. BILLING: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the statements which are being circulated that the Soviets have organised a Red Army in Great Britain; whether it is stated that enrolment has been brisk, that training with dummy weapons is now proceeding, that the organisation has been started with money brought from overseas, that Wales and the Clyde are the chief centres, and that it is the intention of this Red Army to hold a great demonstration throughout the country on 1st May; whether the Government propose to proclaim this demonstration or to permit it, and if he will say whether the political freedom of this country permits the hoisting, saluting, and recognition of the Republican flag?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not been able to receive confirmation of any of the statements mentioned in the question.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to whether the political freedom of this country permits the hoisting, saluting, and recognition of the Republican flag?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BRACE: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he will state what is the business of the House for next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, the Indemnity Bill, and other Orders.

On Tuesday, Supply—War Graves Commission Vote, and Report of the Ministry of Agriculture Vote.

On Wednesday, I propose to move a Resolution allocating the time on the Government of Ireland Bill.

On Thursday, Government of Ireland Bill, in Committee.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Profiteering (Amendment) Bill and the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill have precedence at this day's Sitting of the Business of Supply, and be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 62.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 90.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 90.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SAN REMO CONFERENCE.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Lord E. Talbot.]

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): On the Motion for the Adjournment I think the House would like to have an idea of the view of the British Delegation of what happened at the very important Conference at San Remo. The Conference was undoubtedly in many respects one of the most remarkable that has been held since the Armistice. Before the Conference there had been some misunderstandings, serious enough in themselves, but made grave by deliberate fomenting on the part of very reckless persons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?" and "Northcliffe!"] I am very glad to be able to say that the sky is once more clear. As far as I can see, everybody is satisfied with what happened at San Remo, and everybody is convinced that he did it. That is proof of the depth and sincerity of that satisfaction. I see that they are convinced in Paris that the policy which has been promulgated by certain French journalists is in the ascendant. I see that in Italy they are equally convinced that the European policy of Signor Nitti is triumphant. Men who appeared a fortnight or three weeks ago to be hopelessly divergent in their views are equally satisfied that those views have completely prevailed at San Remo. In Paris I find that they are pleased with our decision to enforce the Treaty. In Germany I see that they are equally pleased that we have departed for the first time from the militarist policy of Paris. There never was such a Conference for achieving the satisfaction and the agreement of all parties concerned! All I can say is that the principals there were filled with gladness at the results of the Conference, and they are glad in that they seem to have been able to spread some of that joy into the darkest recesses of the factories of gloom, where they fabricate and trade in dismal doings. They also seem happy, and, if they are happy, what does it matter?
What matters is what really happened there, and about that I am going to say something to the House. The reason everybody seems to be so satisfied is not because there was any jugglery in the decisions arrived at, but because misunderstandings were removed and suspicions dispelled. There were misunderstandings and there were suspicions, and I think it is always better to speak quite freely about these, because I find that frank discussion is the best way to dispel suspicion.
I am going to say one or two words about the apparent disagreement, and perhaps a real disagreement, between the Allies in reference to the Ruhr incident, because it is essential in order that I should lead up to the decisions which were taken. The Ruhr incident did not arise out of any question with regard to the enforcement of the Treaty—there was no difference of opinion between the Allies as to the enforcement of the Treaty in reference to reparation, disarmament, or any of those great conditions upon which we must insist—it was purely a question of a very grave disturbance which had arisen in a part of Germany, which not merely menaced the peace of that country, but threatened the peace of Europe as well The Ruhr Valley, a great industrial district, had been seized by the Red troops and Communism had been established there. Had it been successfully established, it might have spread not merely over Germany, but from Germany over other parts of Europe. The dispute which arose was solely in reference to the question of who should put it down. The French were of opinion that it ought to be suppressed by Allied troops. All the other Allies were of opinion that it ought to be left to the Germans themselves to restore order in their own country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Prussians.

The PRIME MINISTER: All the other Allies were of opinion that it ought to be left to the Germans themselves to restore order in their own country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Junkers.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to recognise an undemocratic Government in Russia, but
he will not recognise a democratic one in Germany. At any rate, we were dealing with the existing Government in Germany, and that was the whole question. A similar question arose in France in 1871 when the Communists seized Paris and some other towns. It was then suggested by the Germans that they should suppress the Commune. M. Thiers, a very sagacious statesman, was of opinion that it would only help to make the Commune popular in France if Germans suppressed it, and he therefore rejected the offer made by the Germans and insisted on using French troops to restore order in their own country. The Allies were of opinion that the same course ought to be pursued in this case in Germany. We proposed that there should be guarantees that the liberty given to the Germans to occupy the Ruhr for the purpose of suppressing this rising should not be abused.
First of all, we proposed that there should be a definite limit of time, and if that limit of time were exceeded, we should have agreed to the occupation then of any German towns as a guarantee. We also proposed that liaison officers representing the Allies should accompany the troops in order to guarantee that they did not exceed the necessary number, and also in order to see that their methods would not be too stern and too vindictive. I am very glad now to be able to say that the difference which arose is cleared up. The Germans have been informed that the moment the number of troops in the Ruhr Valley is reduced to the proportions permitted by the Allies in a letter of the 8th August the French troops will be withdrawn. Under the Treaty they are not permitted to have any troops at all in that area, but there was a special exemption given in the letter of the 8th August for a period of time for the purpose of restoring order. That period expired on the 10th April. A further extension has been given, and, if they keep their troops down to those numbers, French troops will be withdrawn from Frankfurt and Darmstadt immediately. But the statement which appeared in some of the newspapers that the French troops are not to withdraw until Germany has disarmed and certain other Clauses of the Treaty have been enforced is not in the least accurate. So much for that question.
I now come to the misunderstandings which were removed, and which, having, been removed, place the Alliance, I think, on a firmer basis than ever before. The first misunderstanding in France of British views was the impression that Britain did not mean to enforce the Treaty. Concerning reparation, disarmament, the insult to the Allied troops, payment for the Army of Occupation, the French were under the impression that Great Britain did not mean to enforce the Clauses of the Treaty. There was a discussion in this House about a month or five weeks ago, in the course of which I had the privilege of answering speeches delivered by my two right. hon. Friends. I made it perfectly clear on that occasion that, in so far as the British Government was concerned, not only did we not favour revision, but we thought it unnecessary; we thought the conditions of the Treaty were undoubtedly fair, allowing for every contingency, and, so far as we were concerned, we certainly insisted on enforcement. In the despatches that passed between the French and British Governments over the Ruhr incident, we made it quite clear that the difference of opinion between the French and the British Government was purely a question of police and the restoration of order, and that on questions of disarmament, reparation, and matters of that kind, we certainly would not merely discuss with them the best methods of enforcing them, but would take any action which could be agreed upon by the Allies. Upon that point the Conference which sat at San Remo dispelled all these misgivings.
It was perfectly clear to the French mind, as it was to ours, that the Treaty of Versailles is the basis upon which European policy must march in reference to Germany, and that we proposed to act with them and the other Allies in the enforcement of the conditions of that Treaty. The second misapprehension arose out of the unfounded suspicion, which had been created by the utterances of very powerful personages and the writings of very powerful journalists in France, which indicated that in their minds there was an intention to use the delay in the execution of the Treaty for ulterior motives. The annexation of the Rhineland and coal measures have been openly advocated. There we had to make
it absolutely clear that, under no conditions, would Great Britain assent to any policy of that kind. The lesson of 1870 and 1871 has sunk deep into the minds of millions in Europe. Bismarck's mistake, or rather the mistake of his generals, produced one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of the world. We were determined not to repeat that now by incorporating in the territories of even friendly Powers millions of people of a totally different race. We cannot bequeath to our children another Alsace-Lorraine. If we did, they would curse our memory. It was, therefore, essential, in view of the declarations which have been made by persons of great consequence in France—persons who recently had shown they had great power in France—that we should make it clear that Britain would have no hand or part in any policy of annexation in Europe. I need hardly assure the House that M. Millerand, the French Prime Minister, and those associated with him, readily and sincerely gave an assurance that the vast majority of people of France were just as much opposed to any policy of that kind as the people of Great Britain. That declaration is embodied in the document which has been sent to Germany. It is embodied in the Minutes of the Conference. I attach enormous importance to it, in view of the danger which arises from the policy which is advocated openly by leaders of certain sections of French opinion.
Another part of our policy with regard to Germany is that we decided for the first time to invite German Ministers to meet French, Italian and British Ministers at an open Conference to discuss these questions which have arisen out of the execution of the Treaty, or rather the failure to execute the Treaty. At the present moment these discussions are conducted by Notes by a great number of Commissions, and Commissioners are like the Virgins in the parable—some of them are wise and some of them are foolish, and you cannot always be quite sure that the discussions have been conducted quite in accordance with the policy which has been agreed upon by the Supreme Council of the Allies. Therefore, we felt that it was important that those who were primarily responsible to public opinion in Allied countries and in Germany should
come face to face in order that we should establish clearly what the position was. Before we entered the Conference it was essential that we should know what were the points that were to be the subjects of discussion. On that we arrived at an understanding to discuss the main questions arising out of the execution of the Treaty. First of all, there was disarmament, then reparation, then insult to Allied officers and the Army of Occupation. Those were the main questions. With regard to disarmament, I shall have to say a word or two. We are all agreed that those formidable weapons of war which became such a menace, not merely to the peace but to the liberty of the world, should be destroyed. Upon that there is no difference of opinion between the Allies. I believe the chief charge of collecting and destroying these weapons rests with a British general, acting as a member of a Commission sitting under the presidency of a French general. Another British officer is in charge of the destruction of the aeroplanes. The first thing to do is to locate these guns, next to gather them together into depots, and then to destroy them.
Here I want to speak quite frankly. I saw General Bingham before I went to San Remo. I was very anxious to know the exact position, and asked him to come from Berlin to see me. He told me that the Germans had quite faithfully, in his judgment, given an account of all their guns. With regard to rifles, he experienced great difficulty; the men had not given them up. That, of course, is a danger not merely to the peace of Europe, but to the internal peace of Germany—a very serious one. They have gone home with their rifles and not surrendered them. The real reason, I understand, is this. The German Government have no authority in their own land. I do not want to say anything that is harsh, but this Government does not command the authority which would enable it to make its decrees respected. Soldiers defy it; States defy it, so I understand. That is the greatest difficulty of all. You are dealing with a broken-back creature, which has not got the command of its limbs and its muscles. Its actions are convulsive. It has the command of speech, and that is about all. Information comes to me from British officers
that there is famine in the land. I have had reports from British officers in districts where the population are not getting more than between one-third and one-half of the calories that enable life to be effectively maintained. They are living wholly upon sloshy vegetables with no vitality. That is the trouble in Germany. It is suffering from that kind of shell-shock where it has not recovered the use of its muscles and its limbs, and it is half-paralysed. This I get from British officers. I have taken the trouble to see them and to talk to them and they are quite frank about it. One I sent for from Berlin tells me quite frankly what the position is.
That is the difficulty. When you come to order disarmament you may get a perfectly willing Government which issues decrees hoping that they will be obeyed, but there is no one at the present moment in that country who seems to me to have the power to enforce the decrees, and that is one of the greatest troubles with which we are confronted. If the German Government say, "We can issue orders, but we can get no one to obey them," then we shall know what to do, but it will be action of a totally different sort. You may take one kind of action against a Government which you know threatens you. But you may take another form of action against a Government which you know is perfectly helpless. The action you take depends very largely upon the diagnosis of the facts, and therefore it is vital that we should ascertain exactly what the position is. That is one of the advantages of meeting the people who are, at any rate nominally, in authority, and have established more than nominal authority for the time being in Berlin.
The officers gave me a description of the march of the troops into Berlin. There were only 3,000 or 4,000 of them, and they expected to be hailed as deliverers. The population were simply stunned and stupefied. They looked like a stupefied people, not knowing what the thing meant. So far from being friendly, they were deeply hostile. The troops never realised till they got there that Germany is not merely sick and tired of militarism, but that it will have nothing whatever to do with it. This is what was told me by British officers who were there. These are the facts which have been given to me about the position. In a very short
time these wretched creatures, who had hoped to carry out a coup d'etut, found that nobody wanted it, and that the whole of the population were set against them; not merely the workmen, but the middle classes, and also many of the higher classes who had fought, and, as they thought, had made this sort of thing impossible. That is the position, then, in regard to disarmament. The guns we must get. The aeroplanes we must get. That is essential. We cannot allow these terrific weapons of war to be left lying about in Germany, where there is nobody in real authority to deal with them. It is too dangerous. You can never tell what may happen. Someone may arise who may know what use to make of these weapons. They must, therefore, be cleared out. The rifles are infinitely more difficult to get at; but rifles without guns, machine guns, and aeroplanes are not very formidable as weapons of invasion, though they may be very dangerous as weapons of disorder. We shall, however, have to do our best to secure them.
I come now to reparation. In regard to this two or three questions arise. As I pointed out in the discussion here some few weeks ago, it is no use pointing to the present condition of Germany and saying, "How can Germany pay reparation when she is starving?" Germany will not always be starving. She has a population of 60,000,000 or 70,000,000. It is an intelligent population. It is a highly skilled one. It is a population of craftsmen, a population having all the arts of wealth production. She will recover! What we want to know is, what steps Germany is taking to estimate her liabilities, to assess her liabilities; what proposals she is going to make for liquidating her liabilities. We know perfectly well that in her present condition she cannot pay. She cannot maintain life decently. We want to see that Germany really acknowledges her liability, and is thinking about the best method of liquidating it. To meet a debtor who owes you a large sum of money which he has not paid, who is not paying interest upon it, and. who, when he meets you, talks about everything else except about that debt, is exasperating. The Germans must be got to take steps to assess their liability, and to make some proposals to pay.
Criticisms have been levelled at me from two sides in respect to this debt.
I have been attacked during the last few days because I have proposed that the German indemnity should be fixed. On the other hand I have been attacked because I have never proposed that it should be fixed. Both suggestions cannot be right. As a matter of fact, I have proposed nothing contrary to the Treaty. If the House will bear with me I should like to read exactly what was the proposal about a fixed indemnity which we made to Germany before she signed the Peace Treaty. This proposal is included in a letter of 28th June to Dr. Rantzau, and it was as follows:
 At any time within four months of the signature of the Treaty Germany shall be at liberty to submit, and the Allied and Associated Powers will receive and consider such proposals as Germany may choose to make. In particular, proposals will be received on the following subjects and for the following purposes: Germany may offer a lump sum in settlement of the whole of her liability as defined in Article 232.
That clearly states how the matter stands. I was said to be making proposals for the first time for the fixing of a lump sum. This was in the document of 28th June, 1919. Then it continues:
 or in settlement of her liability under any of the particular categories which have been decided upon and laid down, Germany may offer either to carry out by her own means the restoration and reconstruction, whether in part or in its entirety, of one of the devastated areas, or to repair under the same conditions certain classes of damages in particular regions or in all the regions which have suffered from the War.
That was a definite proposal which we made to Germany, that Germany should herself assess the damages and make her own proposals in regard to the amount. Our complaint is that Germany has taken no steps. We also said to Germany then; "We will give you every facility to visit the devastated areas, so that you can judge for yourselves what is the damage." She sent nobody. The complaint is not that Germany has not paid. We know she could not pay. The complaint is that she is not taking steps as if she really meant to pay. She must do it. I want to make it particularly clear that we are not going to Spa on 25th May to discuss academic questions. Germany must come there with something definite. Let her make her proposals. She is entitled to do that under the Treaty. We are only asking, under the Treaty itself, that what it is permissive
for her to do she shall make some attempt to do. It may be that the time has elapsed, but the Allies are not going to stand on a mere technical question of time, of the elapse of the four months. There has been a good deal of delay in America and elsewhere for which you cannot blame Germany. But the German delegates who are coming to Spa must bring some definite proposals in regard to the sum that can be paid, and in regard to the method by which they propose to pay, the annuity they propose to give, or, indeed, as to any other suggestion which they have for the liquidation of their liability. They will be guaranteed a very fair, impartial, and just consideration of any proposals they put forward, but they must come there as people who mean business, and upon a basis of the acceptance of the Treaty. That is what I want to say in regard to reparation. They must show that they are grappling with the problem. That is all we ask at the present moment.
Upon all these German questions that have, arisen out of the German Peace Treaty I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have established the most complete accord amongst the Allies. There is not merely identity of aim and purpose, but there is identity of agreement as to means. I have never seen it better. The strain has disappeared and there is the same old glad comradeship that carried us through the trials of the Great War. We were performing our work under difficulties. I am bound to say a word about that. We were not at variance. On the other hand, there were attempts to promote discord amongst us. Whilst European Ministers were feeling their way through a dense tangled jungle, we were deafened by simian chatter. Some of us were overpowered with missiles hurled at our poor heads. Personal malignity surely has wide enough scope in the sphere of domestic politics. Here it does not matter—the by-elections show it ! Everybody is beginning to understond that it is simply the writhings of disappointed ambition. But when it begins to get to the foreign sphere there is mischief. Abroad they do not comprehend it yet—though they will—for they naturally do not follow our politics with the same intensity and concentration that we do ourselves. Gradually, however, they are beginning to discover it. Until they do, to promote mischief and discord is criminal. It is treason to
the Allies to try and create bad blood between people who have shed their blood for the common cause, and who have suffered, God knows, enough for their victory. But it is no use making too much fuss over it. All we can do is to call attention to it, not merely to deprecate it, but to make it more and more inoperative. When we were at San Remo we had only one policy, that whenever there were these difficulties, we should meet immediately. I think that is a good plan to follow in the future. The moment we came together we found there was agreement and understanding. One set of delegates thought the other set meant one thing, and that feeling was shared in an opposite sense by the other set of delegates. That happens amongst the best friends. But I think, in the coming together, face to face, of men of goodwill and of good purpose you generally get a good agreement—and, I hope, also a good end! There is no doubt that the San Remo Conference is a triumph of goodwill. Everybody went away, I am sure, happier than after any other conference, and we shall go together now, side by side, with a great unity of purpose which I think will achieve much for the peace of Europe and promote peace and good understanding.
With regard to Turkey I am afraid that I cannot say very much. M. Millerand, in his speech yesterday, stated that he did not think it desirable to give the details of our proposals until we had submitted them to the Turks. That is the policy we pursued with regard to Germany, and I think the French Prime Minister is right. We have not yet submitted our proposals to the Turks, and I think it is desirable that we should do so before they are made a subject of discussion in the various Parliaments of the Allies. However, there is nothing new to reveal on this subject. The general principles have been discussed repeatedly in this House, and there has been no departure from the principles which were laid down in the various Debates—whether it be about Constantinople, or Smyrna or Thrace, or Armenia, or Mesopotamia, or Palestine, or Syria, or Cilicia, or the protection of minorities. On any of those questions the Treaty will be found to embody the principles which have been laid down so frequently in the discussions in this House.
I will only say one word about the mandates. The mandate of Syria has been accorded to France; for Mesopotamia, including Mosul, it has been given to Great Britain; and the mandate for Palestine has also been given to Great Britain, with a full recognition of the famous Balfour declaration in respect of the Jews. There has been an agreement arrived at with the French in respect of the oil distribution in Mosul. As to Armenia, this has presented a problem of overwhelming difficulty. The difficulty, I need hardly point out to the friends of Armenia, arises from the fact that there is no Armenian population in some of the vast areas we should like to have allocated to Armenia, and which there are historical grounds for allocating to Armenia. But if they were given to Armenia, who is to enforce our decrees? France could not undertake it, Britain could not undertake it, and Italy could not, because our responsibilities are too overwhelming. We consulted our military advisers, and they made it quite clear to us that they would involve a very strong and well-equipped military force. It is not merely the expense, but it is the finding of the troops. We have to guard the Straits—that is our charge—Palestine and Mesopotamia; the French have got to protect Cilicia; and the Italians undertake to protect the district of Adalia.
We have great responsibilities in Europe, and no State, with the best will in the world, could possibly pledge its honour to undertake conquest, for that is what it means, of those territories in order to hand them over to the Armenians. We saw the Armenian delegates, and they gave us a very sanguine estimate of what their own forces could muster and what they could not. We had to submit that estimate to expert examination, and although I have no doubt at all that the Armenians can defend their own Republic, it is idle to expect that an undisciplined force, with no military traditions, should be able to capture strong fortresses in a mountainous country full of defiles and sparsely populated, from a foe with past military traditions. That was our difficulty. We could have put it in the Treaty and said, "Take it; we cannot help you, but if you like to undertake it, there it is for you." But that would not have been an honourable thing to do.
The course we adopted was to appeal to the United States of America, which has not accepted any share of the responsibilities in the civilising of those vast areas, and the protection of those poor Christian populations up to the present; but which have, I am convinced, a deep well of real sympathy for them. I do not mean a merely sentimental sympathy, but, I believe, a sympathy which is sincere and capable of making great sacrifices. We are making an appeal on behalf of the Supreme Council of the Allies to the United States of America to undertake a mandate for Armenia. If they do not, then we shall ask that President Wilson should arbitrate as to the boundaries of Armenia. We could not carry it any further than that. The American representatives were present at the Conference, but they had no authority to take any part in the Conference. Therefore we are not in a position to say what the view of America may or may not be on this subject.
With regard to Russia, we practically re-affirmed the decision we previously arrived at to open up trade relations with Russia, and to give very facility for the purpose of opening those trade relations, with a view to sending peace material to Russia, and obtaining the surplus of Russian food stocks and raw materials for the rest of the world. We also made it clear, with regard to the delegation at Copenhagen, that the whole of the Allies stand together in their determination that they cannot accept in that delegation the presence of M. Litvinoff, for the simple reason that he abused his privileges when he was here before. If the Ambassador or Minister of any foreign country had been guilty of conduct similar to that for which he was responsible here, and had taken part in active political propaganda for subverting the institutions of the country, not merely would he have been expelled, even if it had been a friendly Power, but that friendly Power, I am perfectly certain, would never have dreamt of asking that he should be received here again.
It is customary, when you send an emissary to any country, to ascertain whether he is acceptable, and, when you find he is not acceptable to the country,
no one ever dreams of challenging the action of that country. Russia must conform to civilised usages before we can do any business. I know it is a serious matter to delay the obtaining of whatever raw material there may be in Russia, but it is much better that we should have a clear understanding before we do any business with Russia, and we can only do business upon the basis upon which civilised countries do business with each other everywhere. Therefore, we ventured to invite the Supreme Council to support the action we are taking, and all representatives agreed. If a delegation came for the purpose of transacting commercial business, we should not receive M. Litvinoff in this country, nor could we meet him in any other country. That represents substantially the task we had to undertake. This is a Motion for the Adjournment, and if any hon. Member has any question to ask, I hope I may be allowed to answer their questions later on, although I can only do so with the consent of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: That can only be done by permission of the House, and I am sure the House will be glad to allow the Prime Minister to answer any questions.

The PRIME MINISTER: If any questions are put to me, I shall be glad to answer them.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What about the Chaldeans?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have taken special measures for their protection exactly as was done with other Christian communities, because they have been more under our protection than any other Power, and I think they are satisfied with the steps we have taken.
The San Remo Conference will undoubtedly always be a remarkable and a conspicuous landmark. When you were there and when you met delegates from every land you realised more and more how much Europe stands in need of peace. You had trouble and rumours of trouble from every quarter, and you were thankful to feel that Great Britain was surmounting the difficulties that had arisen out of the War perhaps better than any other country. But you felt that there was a great task in front of Europe. In France the British sovereign, which fetched its
25 francs, now fetches 64; in Italy where it used to fetch 26 lira, it now fetches 86 to 89. In Germany, where it used to fetch 20 marks, it now fetches 218, and in Poland the British sovereign fetches 735 marks.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: And they are still fighting.

5.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: And if you go to Russia, the land of the hon. Member's paradise, where there is peace and goodwill and brotherhood, you will probably get a ton of money for a British sovereign. That is the condition of Europe. Prices are high here, but they are higher everywhere else. That part of Europe is struggling hard to get over the troubles of the War and to clear away the debris; the countries are getting impatient, and are even threatening to fling the spade on the rubbish heap. All the same, I felt in the air that things are improving. They are better, and I could see it. The reports indicated it. One felt it in the air that peace was coming. There was more confidence, there was less apprehension; the gaping wounds of Europe had gradually healed. The San Remo Conference marked a distinct stage in this convalescence.

Mr. ASQUITH: The House listened with great interest and, I think, with general sympathy to the Prime Minister. Although there are some points which, I am sure, comprehensive as that statement has been, require further elucidation, I will content myself with two or three observations of a general, although not, I hope, of an irrelevant character. In the first place, it is a matter of profound satisfaction to everybody who has at heart the permanent interests of peace, goodwill and re-settlement in Europe that, whatever transient misunderstandings may have arisen between the Allies, this Conference has had the result, as the Prime Minister has said, of dispelling those clouds and of bringing together in complete unity, not only of policy but of peoples, the Allied Powers that carried the War to a successful conclusion and are primarily responsible for a durable peace. I do not know precisely to what quarters my right hon. Friend was referring when he spoke, in tones of great indignation and deep contempt, of
persons in this country who are seeking to stir up bad blood between ourselves and our Allies the French. It may be that my sources of political information are more limited than his, but I am perfectly certain that if there be such persons they do not represent any considerable section of opinion either in this House or in this country. I hope I may say the same with regard to France, because without making any invidious discrimination between the relative claims upon us born of comradeship and co-operation in the great struggles of the War, of the Allies and the Associated Powers, I think it is permissible to say there is no country in the world to which we are bound by ties of closer and more indissoluble friendship than the French Republic. If there ever was any chance of serious misunderstanding it is all to the good that it should have been removed.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us, following what appears to have been said by the Prime Minister of France yesterday, that the proposed Turkish Treaty, not having yet been formally communicated to the Porte, is hardly ripe for Parliamentary discussion. I should like to make one, or perhaps two, observations suggested by what my right hon. Friend has said in that connection. Deep and heartfelt as is my sympathy with Armenia, I certainly should not advocate—it would be madness to do it— that we ourselves should undertake a mandate in that country, and, indeed, I confess I am alarmed at the extent of the mandates which we have already undertaken. My right hon. Friend tells us that the Conference assigned to us Palestine and Mesopotamia. I say nothing about Palestine, but, in regard to Mesopotamia, I venture to repeat what I said some weeks ago in this House, that I regard with the greatest apprehension commitments, both military and financial, in that area of the world which the conferring and acceptance of such a mandate may involve, and which I do not myself think, in the existing condition of our affairs, we ought to undertake. I should have been very glad to see not an extension but a curtailment of our responsibilities in that country. But in regard to Armenia I am glad of the suggestion that has been made to the United States of America who, for reasons which it is not for us here to
criticise, are holding aloof from any active participation in that re-settlement of the world, which is a necessary result of the contest in which they played so splendid and gallant a part. I should be very glad if I thought there was any prospect, and I hope there may be some prospect, of the United States accepting that invitation. I cannot help thinking that, apart from that, there is something in the suggestions made in a memorandum which appeared yesterday in the Press on the part of the Council of the League of Nations, to which I understand the mandate was, in the first place, offered. My right hon. Friend has not referred to it in any way, but there are very detailed suggestions, both military and financial. The League of Nations point out that they have neither the financial nor the executive force to undertake a mandate themselves. They also make what seem to be practical proposals as to the manner in which this urgent duty from Christian Europe to these people might be effectively discharged. But I am quite prepared for the moment to wait until we hear what is the result of the application the Conference has made to the United States of America.
Leaving on one side the question of the Turkish Treaty, I would like to say a word or two on the decisions of the Conference in regard to Russia and Germany. I hail the conclusions come to on these two points with unfeigned satisfaction. In regard to Russia, the proposal originally put forward as to the resumption of trade relations with Russia, which is a matter of the most urgent importance, was that it should be through some communication, or intercourse, or interchange with the cooperative societies, but that is now, to speak frankly, transformed into a relation with the de facto Government of Russia itself. Thinking as I do that that is wise, I am heartily glad, whatever we may think of the Government of Russia— it is a de facto Government, that such a common-sense conclusion should have been arrived at. I say nothing about the personal question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, as I do not profess to know anything about it, but I do trust that this interchange will be prompt,
thorough and frank both on the one side and on the other, and I assume, if it is going to take place—I do not know the exact state of the facts at the present moment—the blockade, as far as it exists in that part of the world, will be relaxed and ultimately withdrawn. Nothing but good can result from a free interchange of that kind.
But I attach even greater importance to the recognition by this Conference of the necessity for bringing representatives of the German Government into direct communication with the Allied Powers. That is a very large step in advance, and it is one which I myself believe, and hope, will be most fruitful of consequences. I agree that German disarmament is not only prescribed by the Treaty, that it is not only agreed to by the Germans, but that it is a vital necessity in the interests of Central and Continental Europe. At the same time, assuming, as I suppose we may assume, that the maximum figure which the Allied Powers seek to impose on the future of the German army is a figure regulated by the presumed necessities of whatever Government may exist in Germany for the maintenance of domestic order, and that I take to be the governing principle, I think it very desirable especially from the point of fairness and justice, that German representatives should have a full opportunity of putting before the Powers what are their needs, actual and prospective, in that regard. I do not see how anybody outside of Germany can say under existing and probable conditions what force this population of 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 will require for the purposes of maintaining order. My right hon. Friend spoke in a pessimistic spirit of the actual effective power of the existing authorities in Germany to maintain order, or, indeed, to perform the elementary functions of government in a civilised state. I hope in that respect his views may turn out to have been unduly pessimistic. I understand that what he said in regard to the attempted coup d'etat in Berlin, and the manner in which the troops that were drafted in in support of the reactionary movement were received by the population, does really suggest, and this comes from British officers who were eyewitnesses, that the existing Government— I am not speaking of its personnel—has
behind it a larger body of public opinion and public sympathy, and is in a truer sense democratic than some of us have been inclined to believe. At any rate, you will never be able to arrive at a first-hand and authentic estimate of the situation till you have the representatives of the German Government sitting at the able with you, producing their materials, which you can sift and cross-examine by your expert witnesses and advisers. It ought not, and would not, I am sure, under those circumstances, be impossible to arrive at something like general agreement between the two parties on a figure for the future size of this law-preserving army of Germany. What we want in Germany, as in Austria and in all the countries which were lately our enemies, and also in the victorious countries, is to get rid, by a process of disarmament, as speedily and on as large a scale as possible, of the maintenance of military forces for the purposes of aggression. It is in the common interest of the whole world that that should be done throughout. Again, as regards reparation, I think it is extremely desirable that what I called the other day the floating charge which our existing arrangements impose upon the industrial future and upon the economic re-instatement, both of Germany and Austria, should be removed, and that there should be substituted for it a definite, fixed, and agreed sum. I do not want to be unduly controversial, and I do not go into the question whether or not the offer that was made in the letter—not the Treaty—to which my right hon. Friend has referred, of June, 1919, was, in the circumstances of the case, an offer which Germany could have been reasonably expected to accept.

The PRIME MINISTER: She did accept it. She accepted that because she signed the Treaty upon that basis, and it was put in the Proctocol, which she also signed. She undoubtedly undertook to make an offer of that kind.

Mr. ASQUITH: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is right, but it does not really affect my point. I do not think, in the conditions of the case, and particularly having regard to the enormously-inflated sums which were suggested in various parts of the world as the only basis on which reparation could possibly be considered—I do not think it could be said that
Germany acted unreasonably in not bringing forward a definite proposition at that time. Things are different now. I hope and believe that the Germans will come forward with some practicable proposition which the Allied Powers can canvass, criticise, modify, and ultimately accept. You will never have—of that I am as convinced as I am of anything in connection with all these controversies—you will never have a proper reinstatement and restarting of economic life in those countries until they have definite conditions which will enable them from year to year to understand what is the extent of what I may call the actual and potential mortgage on their industrial future. If that is done in a reasonable way, not only will you promote the common interest, namely, the free interchange of trade between these various countries, but you will get what you would not otherwise get, some substantial instalment towards the reparation which is undoubtedly due. I am very glad to think that a conference of that kind is going to take place, as I understand, in the course of the next month or thereabouts.
So far, I think the San Remo Conference marks a distinct step in advance upon the road of international appeasement and reconstruction. Let me add this, which is the only criticism I am going to make—it is not a criticism so much as a suggestion. It is time, or the time is approaching, when these meetings of the Supreme Council should come to an end. I am not for a moment withdrawing or qualifying what I have already said as to the advantage which they have been in the settlement of the intricate questions connected with Peace. But we are looking forward to a future in which international relations will not be regulated by the decisions of two or three Powers, however eminent, and however great the services they rendered in the War. What we want to see is what was in the very forefront, not only of the Treaty of Versailles, but of the other Treaties—the effective establishment of the League of Nations, which shall represent not merely three or four of the Allied or Associated Powers, but which will be the vocal and authentic organ of the vast number of States, both small and great, which are already parties to that great Covenant, and who, I trust, will in a very
short time receive the accession of those who were quite recently our enemies. That is the idea which we ought to put before us; that is the machinery to which we have pledged ourselves. I believe it will be whole-heartedly accepted in spirit and principle by the Allied Governments as well as by the smaller States. The sooner it can be got into effective working, and come to be regarded as an integral part in the international machinery of the world, the better is the hope of a re-establishment of permanent peace, and the re-creation of the industrial and economic future of this devastated Europe.
I feel certain that in what I have said I shall have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, as I am sure I have of the great majority of the Members of this House and of the public opinion of the civilised world. I will only add, and I do so without any reserve or qualification, that I am glad that, by the joint counsel and co-operation of representatives of the Allies at San Remo—to whom I myself think it a great misfortune that there was not added a representative of the United States of America — but even truncated and mutilated as to that extent the personnel of the representative authority of the Council was, I am heartily glad that it has cleared out of the way a number of transient but not unimportant differences, and that it has made, both in regard to Russia and Germany, a real step in our advance on the road to the reconstruction of peace and of humane relations throughout the world.

Mr. BOTTOM LEY: I am not sure whether by any chance I come within the category of the simian chatterers or one of those extremely brainless persons to whom the Prime Minister referred as having been engaged in hurling journalistic missiles at his head. I am going to be perfectly candid, and perhaps a little rude, when I say that, speaking for myself, I am growing somewhat tired of these constant peace ovations to the Prime Minister whenever he returns from a Continental Congress. It seems to me, if I may say so without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has one formula in all his negotiations, whether for domestic or for foreign peace, and that is to give way. He reminds me very much
of the parent with the unruly child, who called it twenty times to come into the house out of the street, and then said, "Stop where you are, you little brat; I will be obeyed." We all know the chief reason for which the Prime Minister went to San Remo. We have heard a lot about suspicions and misunderstandings. The Prime Minister has given to the House to-day a larger edition of the interview he gave to the Continental journalists on Monday last. I have just come back from the Continent—my boat was a little delayed owing to the presence of the one in front of us to which I made reference earlier in the proceedings. I have followed very closely the French papers within the last few days, and the Prime Minister practically confessed in that interview—unless, indeed, it is another case of a reporter's error—that it was he and his Government who had been mainly responsible for the suspicions and misunderstandings which had arisen. If I may trust the report, he said, and I confess the statement amazed me:
 You gentlemen of the French Press must remember that we Celts are more suspicious than the Anglo-Saxon race.
I did not know that we had an entirely Celtic Government at the present time. I do not know whether the First Commissioner of Works can claim that distinction. At any rate, the Prime Minister apologised, in a sense, for the suspicions which his Celtic temperament had caused him to entertain towards the good intentions of our great French ally He went to France with the primary purpose —I am sure he will not really contradict me—of inducing the French to withdraw their troops from Germany; and when M. Millerand said, " Jamais jamais, jamais," he threw his arms round his neck and said, " Mon cher ami, we will be just as good friends; you shall keep them there; Britain shall be obeyed "
May I venture, as a serious statesman, to deprecate the somewhat light and frivolous tone which characterised the Prime Minister's description of the proceedings and the result of the Conference He told us that everyone was satisfied, and everyone thinks he is responsible for the outcome. It is easily understandable, because nothing whatever has really been done. The French troops remain in Germany, and the Prime Minister, in the deep recesses of his great mind, knows" very well that they will remain there until it suits France to withdraw them. There
is in France to-day a feeling of intense distrust of Britain. The Prime Minister, being very fond of the sea, went to San Remo by water. He came back by train, in such circumstances that he was not able to pay a formal visit to Paris. I wish he had done so. It is a lamentable fact that you cannot go to-day into any theatre or music-hall in Paris and find one note of cheering, or even of respect for Britain when her name or that of any of her great Ministers is mentioned. That is a lamentable state of things, and what is the result? France leaves her troops in Germany. She will withdraw them when she thinks it safe to do so. She does not think it safe at present. I have had the advantage of conversations with French statesmen and authorities of only less eminence than those who have been associated with the right hon. Gentleman. She has no intention of withdrawing her troops until she is satisfied, after the Spa Conference, that Germany's good faith may be trusted. There is to be another Conference at Spa. Germany is to be asked to send representatives. I wonder if I am wrongly informed when I say there was a suggestion that they should be sent to San Remo. I wonder whether I am wrongly informed when I say the French Prime Minister would have nothing to do with it. I wonder if I am wrong when I predict that the French Prime Minister will decline to meet German representatives even at the Conference at Spa. The feeling in France is very different from that which prevails here. They have suffered more. They are nearer to the danger zone than we are. So I say the feeling in France today will not be greatly assuaged by what has taken place in the House this afternoon.
Was there ever a more remarkable change of front on the part of any Government than that to which we have listened to-day with regard to indemnities? I take it that indemnities, qua indemnities, have gone for ever; we do not hear the word. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) protested against our putting upon Germany's shoulders anything except, I was going to say the lightest possible burden she could bear, but, at any rate, he is dead against indemnities. The Government is dead against indemnities because Germany is now to be invited to name some lump sum
which she thinks she can saddle herself with, and we are going to abrogate all the terms of the Treaty under which on 31st May of next year it is our duty to tell Germany how much we want of her. We are going to invite her to say how much she can pay us and when she can pay it. That is what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said at Bristol that we should demand payment of the uttermost farthing and search the pockets of Germany till we got it?
The Prime Minister has announced that America, standing in sinister aloofness from Europe and all her present troubles, throwing the Treaty back in our faces, throwing even the Leagues of Nations, her own invention, to the winds, is to be invited to take charge of Armenia, or failing that, that Mr. Wilson, forsooth, of all people in the world, is to act as arbitrator in the settlement of the new frontiers and boundaries. We were not told what is going to happen when Mr. Wilson addresses an elaborate Note to us which popularly interpreted will simply mean, "I will have nothing whatever to do with you or Armenia." We know America will not, and I wonder if the Prime Minister is prepared with some alternative proposal if America says she has had enough of war and enough of Treaties and will have nothing to do with these mandates. I am sorry to be the speaker of a note of discord. I hope I have not sent the Prime Minister away in disgust, but the points I have just mentioned are those which will be noted by the public. The public in this country are sick and tired of America's part in this War. They will not have any more Wilson. They will not have any more America, and I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harmsworth) will take note of this, that the reply of the President will tell us to look elsewhere if we want any assistance for a mandate for Armenia.
Why cannot we see the despatches which passed between this country and France prior to San Remo? We should have seen then that there was no ground whatever for the suspicion which the Prime Minister himself entertained towards France and which he excused on the ground of his Celtic temperament. We should have seen that France three times appealed to us to co-operate with her in occupying Germany to a sufficient extent to render harmless the presence of
the German troops there. What was our attitude? The old attitude that got us into so much trouble in the early days of the War. We said, "The British Government leaves it to Germany herself." Those are the words of the Prime Minister. We have suddenly been converted to a great faith in Germany—Germany which has no Government, which cannot enforce any one of its own decrees—and yet you are going through the farce of asking her to send representatives to Spa. When I interrupted the Prime Minister and asked, "What is the good of bringing them in these circumstances?" he said, "It is just as well to be able to find out the real position," and he told us a few minutes earlier that several British officers had told him all about it. We knew that Germany was a broken-backed beast, a kind of Coalition Government, an invertebrate being, as the Lord Chancellor calls it. We were told Germany was starving. We were told what she had eaten, though we were not told what she had drunk. Now we are going through the farce of inviting German delegates to a Conference at Spa, which delegates M. Millerand will not meet or will only meet under very extraordinary conditions, and when we have heard their story we shall cancel the Indemnity Clauses of the Treaty altogether. We shall ask only for a little reparation, which does not interest this country at all. Heaven knows we do not envy France what she is to get. She is to get a little reparation towards her devastated areas. We are to get nothing, and the old cry, "Make Germany pay" has gone to the winds for ever. Everything is to go on as though there had been no War. We have forgotten her duplicity, her character, her treachery, her barbarism, everything which aroused us in the days of the War.. Shake hands and be friends!
We, in these hours of reconstruction, have to bear the whole burden of the £8,000,000,000 which the War has cost us. We have to go cap in hand to President Wilson to help us with Armenia and the position is unsatisfactory and undignified. I do not think the San Remo Conference has done one atom of good. It has sent a draft Treaty to Turkey. It amazed me to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) say we shall have an opportunity of discussing it later on. We have
no opportunity of discussing peace treaties in this House. That is reserved for America and Continental countries. We are told to take it or leave it. So it will be with Turkey. Beyond asking Germany to come and talk over reparation and saying to France, "Keep your soldiers where they are," what has been done? I emphasise the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith). It is time these Conferences came to an end. It is time the Supreme Council packed up its papers. As I witnessed the members of it walking on to the special boat yesterday at Boulogne, I wondered what on earth they were all doing there with their boxes, their portfolios, their secretariat and everything else. We have been to France, we have been to Italy, we have had Conferences in London, and when we have been to Spa let us hope that is the end of these Conferences. Let Britain then make up her mind what she wants as France is doing, but do not deceive the country. Do not pretend that all is well with France when it could not possibly be worse. Do not hold out false hopes. France will be no party to agreeing to let Germany name some small sum as her total obligation, and after the Spa Conference we shall have the whole thing re-opened, and it will be a worse position than we are in to-day. I am. sorry to be a pessimist in these circumstances, but as one who has expressed these views on many occasions in other places I take the liberty of doing so to-day, and I respectfully commend them to the attention of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I wish to put some questions to the Prime Minister with regard to his speech in the same spirit in which the Allied Delegates seem to have approached each other at the Conference at San Remo, a spirit not of criticism, but promoted solely with a desire to obtain more information, and by obtaining it to arrive at a fuller measure of agreement. The Prime Minister said the free interchange of views at San Remo had had most advantageous results. I cannot help thinking in the same way that a free interchange of views in this House on these great questions will be similarly successful in its results. Further, I should like to express the desire that this House had more opportunities
of Debates of this kind than it has had since the beginning of the Peace negotiations. Two aspects of the state of foreign politics have impressed themselves upon me during the last six weeks. First of all it has seemed to me that the lesson to be drawn from the incidents in March and the beginning of April was that, at any rate, at that time there was a want of close liaison between ourselves and France. As everything has ended so well, I do not want to refer to those incidents except to point the moral of them and to express the hope that we shall not see a repetition of the state of affairs which seems to have left the French public in complete ignorance of our occupation of Constantinople until it has actually taken effect, and in the same way which left in ignorance public opinion here, with reference to the Ruhr controversy, that any difference of opinion had arisen between our Government and the French Government. The second aspect of the state of affairs that has impressed itself upon my mind was that, in spite of this temporary misunder standing, the Anglo-French Alliance was as solid as ever. Public opinion still regards it as one of the three pillars of our foreign policy—the Anglo-French Alliance, the Anglo-American Alliance and a full belief in the efficacy of the League of Nations. Those, in my mind, are the three bases of our foreign policy, and I believe the events of March have shown that public opinion in this country generally realises that they are so. That does not mean that from time to time we may not feel ourselves bound to criticise each other's actions; but let that criticism be the kind of criticism of friends and allies, and whenever we have to criticise French policy in any of its aspects or details, let us remember the cardinal fact that we are secure by the destruction of the German Navy, but that the French still have upon their land frontier 60,000,000 of potential enemies. As a result of the San Remo Conference in which the Prime Minister played a very prominent and honourable part, I believe these misunderstandings have been completely removed, and from what I have seen in the Press of the Note which has been sent to Germany, the Allied Note to Germany is an outward expression of this renewed solidarity of the Anglo-French Alliance. I am very glad to see that the Allied Note, if the reports in the Press are correct, lays
emphasis upon the question of the need for German disarmament. Looking around Europe, it seems to me that the first condition of a stable Europe is disarmament. I cannot help saying in that connection that I regard as a piece of effrontery the recent German Note upon the subject of the armed forces that are to be allowed to Germany, in which they demand not only an army twice the size of that which has been allowed under the Treaty, but an increase of heavy artillery, which could only be used for offensive purposes. I hope that when the Allies and the German delegates meet at Spa the Allies will make it quite clear that the time for evading disarmament is passed, and that what we want, as the Prime Minister said very truly, is deeds and not words. We want to see some outward evidence that the Germans are really going to disarm, and without further delay. There has been too much delay in carrying out the Disarmament Clauses of the Treaty.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will convey to the Prime Minister our desire to have further information on two points. The Prime Minister said that the French would withdraw if the Germans would withdraw from the Ruhr Valley. Can he give us any further information in that direction? Can he tell us what is to happen if the Germans refuse to withdraw? Without pressing him to give us any information that might embarrass the proceedings at the Spa Conference, I should like to have some further information with regard to the number of troops that Germany is to be allowed to retain. If the reports in the Press are correct, the Prime Minister is inclined to the view that Germany should be allowed to retain an army of 200,000 men. If disarmament was fully carried out under the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty, an army of 100,000 men would be quite sufficient to maintain civil order in Germany. It is not the business of the Allies to attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Germany. It is not our business to ensure to Germany an army so great as to make it impossible for political movements to develop, whether they be from the left or whatever be their kind. I should have thought that, in view of that fact and in view of the further fact that Germany has really to be disarmed, an army of 100,000 men would be sufficient.

6.0 P.M.

The Prime Minister laid great emphasis on the question of reparation. There again, with deference, I would ask for a little further information. So far as I understand the situation, there are to be two Conferences in the near future to deal with the economic situation in Europe. In the first place, there is the Conference summoned by the League of Nations to meet, I believe, in Brussels. In the second place, there is the meeting of the Supreme Council at Spa. Both these Conferences are equally interested in the question of the amount of reparation which is to be exacted from Germany. I cannot see how the Conference of the League of Nations is to grapple with the economic situation of Europe until it knows what the Supreme Council at Spa decides with reference to the sum that is to be exacted from Germany. It stands to reason that the whole question of Continental credit must depend upon the amount of reparation that is to be exacted from Germany. I should have thought that the proper course to take would have been for the Spa Conference to meet at once, to allow the German representatives to attend, and in the immediate future to decide upon the sum which is to be exacted from Germany, and that the Conference of the League of Nations should be so informed. The Conference of the League of Nations by that means would be put in a position to deal with the question of international credit. Whilst I am fully conscious of the valuable work that the Allied plenipotentiaries have done at the various Allied Conferences, particularly at San Remo, it is my opinion that when they have completed the work of the Spa Conference the Supreme Council should be dissolved. The time when the Prime Ministers should attend these Conferences has now passed, and it would be much better that the winding up should be left in the hands of the diplomats. For this reason, if for no other, that under the present arrangements it is practically impossible for the United States to take part in the Allied deliberations. Obviously the United States cannot send a plenipotentiary to these Allied Conferences, and as we are all anxious to bring the United States into a settlement of the questions which still remain open for settlement, it would be much better from every point of view, and particularly that point of view, if the winding
up of the Conferences was left not to the Prime Ministers of the respective countries, but to their official representatives.
I now come to the remarks of the Prime Minister with regard to the Turkish Treaty. I can well understand that the Prime Minister could not go into details of the terms of a Treaty which has not yet been presented to Turkey: but it would relieve the minds of many hon. Members if he could give us a little more information with reference to the situation in Turkey. It seems to me that at the present moment things are drifting from bad to worse. The Government that we have set up in Constantinople appears to be a Government without any power in the Turkish Empire, and we see not only the massacres of christians in Asia Minor continuing, but from all accounts becoming worse and worse. The Prime Minister said in connection with the state of affairs in Armenia that " the French have undertaken to protect Cilicia." We should very much like to know, those of us who are interested in the fortunes of Armenia, what that protection actually means. If it is to be full military protection no one will be more delighted than myself. I hope we may interpret the Prime Minister's words as meaning that the French have undertaken to protect Cilicia in the most literal manner. At the same time, just as in Germany disarmament is the first condition of peace, so also in Turkey disarmament is the first condition of peace. I hope that when the terms are published the most stringent disarmament will be imposed upon the Turks in Asia Minor, just as we are imposing disarmament upon the Germans and our other former enemies. I mean disarmament in all districts over which the Turks still retain possession.
Now I come to the Prime Minister's remarks in regard to Bussia. So far as I understood him, he gave the House to understand that there had been no change in our Russian policy since his last speech on the subject. In other words, that we still refuse to recognise the Bolshevik Government, but that we are prepared to trade with the co-operators in Russia. With reference to our trade relations with Russia, I foresee grave dangers. I am fortified in my opinion by what has
recently been happening in Copenhagen. At Copenhagen our representatives have been meeting certain representatives of the Soviet Government for the purpose of re-opening trade relations between the west and Russia. Nominally these Russian representatives were co-operators. Actually they were nothing of the kind. The principal Russian delegate, Krassin, was manager of a great German industrial concern and one of the best known captains of industry in the east of Europe, and it was made clear in the course of these negotiations that Krassin had come, not to renew trade relations between his country and the west, but to obtain the political recognition of the Bolshevik Government.
Before we continue negotiations of that kind I think we ought to be satisfied that Russia really has food and raw material to export. Personally, from information which I have, I do not believe there are any very large stores of either corn or raw material to be exported from Russia to Western Europe at the present time. There is a further danger in these negotiations. Suppose we do renew these trade relations, how will the corn and raw material be actually obtained in Russia itself for export? Judging from the records of the Bolshevik Government I am inclined to think that it will be seized from the peasants, and that we Western nations will appear to Russia under the guise of capitalist exploiters who are renewing relations with Russia for the purpose of taking from a population, by no means over-supplied with food, large stocks of food and raw material. The Prime Minister made a statement in this connection that I received with very great satisfaction. He said it was impossible to trade with peoples or countries that would not carry on their trade upon civilised principles. It seems to me that there is no evidence whatever that the Bolshevik Government have changed their uncivilised principles.
If the Prime Minister has had brought to his notice the wireless messages that recently have been passing from the Bolshevik government in Moscow, he will remember that the Bolshevik government emphasise strongly all those old subversive principles, the continuance of which makes it impossible to renew relations with them, the principle, for instance, of industrial conscription, the fact that on
no account will they demobilise the Red Army, the fact again that they do not pretend that trade relations with capitalist countries are anything more than a pretext for obtaining political recognition for themselves. These facts make me see a very grave danger in the resumption of trade relations with Russia. I fully realise the complications of the moment and the anomalous position, but it does seem to me that as long as the Bolshevik government continue to express these sentiments and, as far as we can judge, to act upon them, it is very dangerous for us to enter into any kind of relations, formal or informal, with them. If they were ready to demobilise the Red Army, personally I should say that the situation was completely changed. That would make it possible for public opinion again to express itself in Russia, and I should ask the Prime Minister when again he comes to discuss the question of our relations with Russia, to do everything in his power to bring about the demobilisation of the Red Army. I know that the Prime Minister says, quite rightly, that that is a very difficult thing indeed. What I want to see is the demobilisation of all these armies. I should be delighted to see the demobilisation of the Polish army side by side with that of the Red army.

The PRIME MINISTER: assented.

Sir S. HOARE: The secret of all these questions at the present moment is demobilisation and disarmament in Germany, disarmament in Turkey, disarmament in Eastern Europe. It does seem to me that until we can obtain demobilisation and disarmament no number of paper treaties is going to bring about peace again in Europe.

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask the Prime Minister two questions. One is whether there is any possibility of any indemnity being received from Germany before the next Finance Bill? The other is, when will the trial of the Kaiser take place in London, and whether any trial will take place of the other German officers who have been implicated in breaches of international law?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I had on the paper to-day two questions for the Prime Minister with regard to Cilicia. Of course, I quite understand that he was not able to answer them, and it was perfectly natural that I should be referred by the Leader
of the House to the Prime Minister's statement for the answer. But I confess that I should have liked a little fuller information. I am grateful for what was given. On the whole, those of us who are interested in the fate of Armenia must feel considerably relieved by the statement made to-day. We have been going through a period of very great anxiety, a time in which it seemed that both Northern and Southern Armenia were in the greatest danger, and rumours were going about that the great Powers had abandoned them to their fate. At any rate, we may infer from what we were told to-day that these sinister rumours were not well-founded, and that we shall stand one way or another to our duty to those unhappy people, at least within that moderate degree of fulfilment which is possible in the present difficult circumstances. I so understand from the Prime Minister's words, and I believe and hope that the future will bear them out.
He referred to Northern Armenia, the Republic in what was Russian territory, with that part of Turkish Armenia which it is proposed to add to it, and spoke of the impossibility of adding to it great territorities which historically are Armenian, and which for many reasons he would wish to add to Armenia. Of course, that is so. There is no good failing to recognise the facts, and it is undoubtedly the case that the six Armenian vilayets have been to a large extent emptied of their Armenian population by massacre and war. There was no doubt a time when the Armenians were the great mass of the people there, but recently all one could say, even before the War, was that they were larger than any other single element in that great area. I do not know whether we can say so now, because very largely they have been exterminated or driven into exile. It is a perfectly intolerable thought that we are to recognise majorities made by massacre, yet I quit realise that, if no great country can be found to undertake the mandate for Armenia, it does not seem possible to add the whole of that great territory to the Armenian Republic.
If we could have got as mandatory the United States or some other Power, that great act of historical justice might have been done, and a great State, to be
called Armenia, stretching from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, might have been set up, not to give a privilege to any special race, but as a field of freedom and equal opportunity for all civilised men of whatever race and religion they were, and a standing monument for all time, that the horrible brutality of the Turk and the attempt to exterminate a people should not prevail, but that there finally ought to be a country which would bear the name, at any rate, of the race which there had been this attempt to exterminate, to which that race could and would go back in great numbers from all parts of the world, and in course of time become the predominant race throughout that great area. I do not know that that can be now, unless the United States at this eleventh hour will accept the mandate which we are glad to know has been offered to them. But at any rate, there is a considerable territory near the Erivan border, which ought to be, and I hope will be, added to the Republic. We hope that the vilayets of Van, Bitlis and Ezeroum will be added to the Republic of Erivan, so that there may be a place for hundreds of thousands of refugees, who have been driven from different parts of Armenia, to come back, if not to their original home, to something that could be called Armenia, and there establish themselves in a peaceful, strong and civilised state.
Even if America will not undertake the mandate, there is always the hope that she will join, and join generously, with the other great Powers in finding that financial guarantee which is one of the necessities of a settlement. If that can be got, then, although we may not be able to get a great Power to undertake the mandate, it may be possible for one of the smaller Powers to undertake it. Without a financial guarantee the smaller Power could not undertake it. The amount of money would not be enormous. It has been calculated that for about eight years Armenia could not pay its way, and that during that period the deficits, with the interest thereon from year to year, would accumulate, perhaps, to the total of £10,000,000, but that from that time onward there would be a surplus—for it is a rich country, and they are an industrious people—beginning with about £500,000 a year, to help pay off the debt. I have seen all the details of that calculation. It was very care-
fully based upon the present expenditure of the Erivan Republic, so far as that part is concerned, and upon the expenditure of the Turkish Government in peace time for the three vilayets. I think that the calculation of £10,000,000 for the simple government and administration which would be all that would be needed is fairly accurately made. If we fail altogether to get a mandatory for Armenia, I submit that we British ought to give some help. I do not suggest that we should undertake a mandate for that country.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the Armenian Army being without a military tradition. Of course, there never has been an army. But the race is not without a military tradition. As a matter of fact, they are very much misunderstood in that respect. It is a fact that for a great time past they have, wherever they have been allowed to get arms, made a great fight for liberty. It is true that the Turks were clever enough to keep them almost always without arms, and, therefore, they had no possibility of making a fight, but, if you recall Andranik, in the mountains of the Cacausus, during the late War he and his men showed a record of heroism in fighting, and in clean, decent fighting, of which any race might be proud. Take the four months after the break-up of the Russian front, and you will find that it was the Armenians chiefly who held back the advancing Turks and prevented them from taking Mosul in the rear. Take Northern Syria and you will find that the Armenian legion performed a worthy part in fighting under France there. Even at Verdun there were Armenians serving in the French force. At the beginning of the War it was my duty to go to the British War Office and offer 5,000 Armenian volunteers for service in the British Army. I may mention that now.
Therefore I hope that, although we may not be able to undertake a man-date, still, if no other mandatory can be found, we will give some help to this new Armenian State. I believe that the kind of help which can best be given is to allow British officers to take superior posts in the Armenian Army. That would have many advantages. It would give an assurance that there would be no acts of revenge, such as can hardly be avoided, human nature being what it
is, if there are no supervising European officers there. So much for the north. Northern Armenia has for a long time been a much less anxious part of the problem than Cilicia. In Cilicia lives are in peril—British lives as well as the lives of the indigenous Christian people. I hope that I may infer, from what the Prime Minister said, that France will protect Cilicia, and that that is meant in the fullest sense. There have been two currents of opinion in France. One was prepared to take over Cilicia in the fullest sense and to make France responsible for the people there, not in a merely sordid way, but in the interests of humanity and civilisation as well as of commerce. The other was that France should occupy only certain points and should leave the Turk to govern the interior in his own brutal way, while France confined herself to commercial privileges in that region. When the Prime Minister says that France will protect that country, I hope it means that there has been a victory for that current of thought which will lead to France taking up the nobler part that so many of her sons desire she should adopt.
While the Armenians have, of course, desired a united Armenia, a greater Armenia stretching from sea to sea, while it was rather a heavy blow to them to find that their country was going to be truncated in the North and divided into two parts, the northern part cut off from the southern, still they will loyally accept the decision, the suzerainty or government of France in Southern Armenia, if France on her part will loyally undertake to protect life and liberty and honour and establish civilised government in that region. When the Prime Minister was saying that there was no departure from our pledges in Mesopotamia and Syria and so forth, I asked him about Cilicia, and he said: "No, not in Cilicia either." May I remind the House of the position with regard to Cilicia? There was a Debate in the House of Lords, in December last, when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Curzon) repeated with solemnity the promises that had been given to protect the Armenian people. He said that when the arrangement was made by which he handed over Cilicia to the French:
We proposed to transfer to the charge of the French the 12,000 Armenian refugees at Aleppo, to whom I have referred.
They were in English keeping and they wanted, as I know by a letter from the War Office, to remain with the British Army and to follow it South, but we transferred those people, 12,000 of them at Aleppo, to the French. Lord Curzon also said:
That charge was accepted by them, and those persons are being transferred to Cilicia.
They were transferred to Cilicia, and a large number of them were among the people who were massacred in Cilicia during the late risings here. Earl Curzon, continuing his statement, said:
There are also a number of Armenian refugees at other towns in the North of Syria, Marash and Erivan, and other places which are now in the French sphere, and who will therefore be looked after by the French, Then, if you come to Cilicia itself, there is the Armenian Community in that old Province of the Turkish Empire which throughout has been under the military and civil administration of the French, where, therefore, the Armenians are again a French charge.
That is a very clear setting out of the French obligations in that part of the country. I hope we may take it that the Allies do not depart from the pledges given in regard to Cilicia, and that the French accept fully the obligation to protect life in that country. Lord Curzon said:
By those declarations we stand. They have never been departed from. They do not express the sentiments, the aspirations, or the functions of ourselves alone. They are shared by all our Allies.
The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) spoke of the duty owed by Europe to the subject peoples of Turkey. I think we must always remember that it is a matter of duty that we owe to them. It is not that we are going crusading about the world finding all sorts of things to put right. It is that we owe a debt to these people, who are in the position that they are in owing to our action, and, therefore, it is an obligation to see that their position is improved as far as is reasonably possible. They have been the sport of the Great Powers for two or three generations. If you take the Crimean War or the Russo-Turkish War, if you take any period you like, you will find that these subject races of Turkey have been kept down by the Turks because the Turks were able to rely upon the jealousy and the rivalries? of the Great Powers. At one moment England would have put the matter right,
but Russia would not allow it. At another time Russia would have put the matter right and England would not allow it. At another time both would have put the matter right if Germany would have allowed it. These people have suffered and paid the price every time. We are their debtors. Europe is their debtor, to see that right is done now. And Great Britain is not the least amongst the debtors.
I hope that when the Prime Minister comes to answer we shall hear something more about Cilicia. We have had his general words and they are very encouraging, but I should like to hear a little more in detail. I want to know what the boundaries of Cilicia are to be. I hope it will be a big Cilicia I hope that Cilicia, occupied by the French, will go right up to the territory of the Armenian Republic, because I want to see those two between them occupying the space between the Mediterranean and Persia. If they do not there will be a corridor in the hands of Turkey, and that means a corridor in a semi-savage condition down which the fanaticism of Central Asia Minor will have a through way from the Turks to Afghanistan. It will mean an eternal disturbance of the peace, not only in the Near East, but in British India as well. We are sometimes told that Great Britain cannot afford to take up these humanitarian duties. It is not merely a question of humanitarian duties. British interests, if we must speak of British interests, are vitally involved in establishing a peaceable state of things in the Near East and in preventing the schemers of Constantinople and the fanaticism of the Turks from passing in a clear corridor through Kurdistan and working to our damage in British India.
There is another thing I hope we shall be told. What is going to be done with the minorities within that part of Turkey which will remain under Turkish Government? I have often spoken for Armenia in this House, but I hold as strongly as anyone that the Turks are entitled to the same right as other people to live in their own districts according to their own ideas and with their own government. I hold as strongly as anybody that most of the Turkish people are to be infinitely pitied for what they have suffered under the régime of Constantinople. I certainly desire to know what is to be done
with that part of Turkey which will remain Turkey, not only for the sake of the minorities, who must necessarily be there, but for the sake of the Turks themselves. There must necessarily be minorities, because everybody acquainted with the East knows how hopelessly the populations of different races and religions are intermixed. Although there will be a certain sorting out, it is undoubted that there will be minorities within Turkey. We are promised that their interests will be protected. I would like to ask what practical steps will be taken for their protection, and I hope those steps will lead to the great benefit of the Turkish and Mohammedan people. I feel considerable satisfaction at what has been said by the Prime Minister, and I hope he will be able to give us more details and the assurance that relief may be rendered, so that we may be delivered from the great anxieties which have almost crushed some of us for a good many months past.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I listened, in common with the greater part of the House, and I think I may say the whole of the House, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), with great satisfaction and gratitude to the account which the Prime Minister has been good enough to give us of the negotiations at San Remo. I listened to it with all the greater satisfaction because, owing to some curious breakdown in Ministerial arrangements, this House had no opportunity of hearing during the course of that Conference any information whatever, or even the information which was freely given, apparently, to the Press. I trust that in any future Conference some arrangement will be made by which, at any rate, the House of Commons is not to be treated with less respect and less consideration than the daily Press of this country. I am glad that the Prime Minister was able to say that there is now no cloud on the Entente sky. That is very good hearing indeed, and I trust that the clouds which did exist were not so serious or so black as we were led to believe. There was a good deal of outcry about our relations both in this country and in France, and according to the hon. Member for Hackney some of that still persists. But I am quite satisfied that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) were fully justified in their
statements that the vast majority of the people of this country are anxious to maintain the very best possible relations with the French people. There were other things which I heard also with great satisfaction. I am exceedingly glad that it is now definitely and finally settled that the mandate of Palestine is to be given to this country. I say that not with any megalomania and not from any belief that it is going to be of great or any advantage, direct advantage, to this country. I believe it will be a burden and responsibility of a very serious kind. I believe that the mandatory of Palestine will have one of the most difficult tasks that could possibly be allotted to a nation. The mandatory will have exceedingly complex racial questions to settle and will have to deal with them with great tact and judgment, and in all probability without receiving any return for such exertion, except what he may hope for in the gratitude of those races who will benefit by those exertions.
As for Mesopotamia, I confess I do not find myself altogether in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. There, too, I doubt very much whether they will be any pecuniary advantage. The House will recollect that if the spirit of the mandatory system is carried out no direct pecuniary advantage can accrue to the mandatory. That is the whole foundation of the mandatory system. Moreover, in. the case of Mesopotamia it must be a fairly expensive business. On the other hand, I doubt whether it will be quite so expensive as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. I believe if we set up, as I hope we shall, an Arab Government, or rather assist in setting up an Arab Government in Mesopotamia, a native Government, and encourage that Government to raise troops of its own, no doubt with the assistance of British officers which it will require at first, then I believe the military commitments may be reduced to a very much lower figure than some of our advisers incline to think may be necessary. At any rate, we have gone to Mesopotamia and we have established Government there and we have induced a number of people to trust us, and if we left it again it would mean confusion. I do not quite know what the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley is on this matter. We cannot
leave it. If we did, it would throw it into complete confusion or back under the domination of the Turks. So that there is really nothing for it since we have gone, as we were bound to go there, but to remain and discharge our duty until we have succeeded in establishing a Government, a native Government, sufficiently strong and vigorous to stand by itself.
I also heard with great satisfaction the repudiation, although I never doubted it, by the French Ministry through the mouth of the Prime Minister of any desire for further annexation, and in what was said on that subject I heartily agree. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman might have even gone further and said with great truth that nothing could be more disastrous to the French themselves than to have in their Dominions a large tract of country inhabited by Germans. It would be a perpetual weakness and would not be a strength at all. It would cause an everlasting sore which would be bound to end in a conflagration in the future in some form or other. I agree also very much indeed with the policy of the Council of the Allies in reference to the disarmament of Germany. I am not now so much concerned about the question as to whether an increased force may be necessary as a domestic force or whether a hundred thousand is sufficient. That may be a question of possible readjustment. I should have thought that 100,000 was ample even to keep order in a country like Germany, though I am not sure that it would be sufficient for Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: We can do without them in Ireland, and would be far better without them. Take them and lend them to Germany.

7.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: There is one reason why I look forward very earnestly to the disarmament of Germany, and that is, that the disarmament of Germany is essential for the disarmament of Europe. If you disarm Germany then the demo cracy of France will not be inclined to maintain a large army in France. The one thing that makes it possible to maintain a large army in France is fear of Germany. If you could once remove that, I am quite sure you would find it easy to secure the general disarmament of Europe. That is one of the main
reasons why I am very glad to hear that the Government intend to insist particularly on those parts of the disarmament Clauses which provide for the surrender of guns and aeroplanes and things of that kind.
It has been said that the difficulty of getting the Germans to carry out the terms in this respect and others was that the German Government had no authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, who is a temperamental optimist, said he thought that the fact that what is called the Kapp coup was rejected by the German people, showed that the German Government had more authority than some people thought. I am not quite sure he is right. It is one thing to hate militarism, and it is quite another thing to have any great respect for the inside government of Germany. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend in any future negotiations he may be engaged in will bear in mind, and I have no doubt he does bear it in mind, the great importance of maintaining the authority of the German Government by diplomatic action as far as possible. I am not sure that that consideration has always been sufficiently present in the Allied consultations I myself have always regretted the decision of the Conference of Paris not to meet the Germans there. It was treating them in' a way in which no other belligerent has ever been treated in. the history of the world, as far as I know, in the conclusion of peace. I never could see how we could be contaminated by sitting in a room with a German delegate. I think it was a regrettable thing, and I believe some parts of the Treaty would have been made more easily workable if that had been the case.
There was the demand for War criminals, with its unhappy history. I am quite sure that to put forward such a demand as ultimately was put forward was a disastrous blow to the prestige of the German Government of the day, and I do not know that it was made any better by the fact that ultimately it could not be insisted upon. I am afraid something may also be said with regard to the original Reparation Clauses of the Treaty. My right hon. Friend said, and with great truth, that the condition in large parts of Germany was not far removed from a condition of famine. He pointed out that a great part of the popu-
lation were not receiving more than half or a third of proper nourishment. That is very serious, and I would remind him, though it was not quite so bad as that last summer, I think if he will look back at the report even then by British officers he will find that the condition of affairs was very serious. I think that it was a pity to place on the Germans a form of reparation, which now we all know was a bad plan. It was too indefinite in form, and operated with great weight against, their recovery, and made it difficult for them to recover, and took from them that incentive to exertion which is essential to the spiritual and mental recovery of a nation. It is quite true that even at that time the Germans were asked to make an offer, and they did make an offer. They offered to pay something which was, I agree, quite insufficient, but it was not discussed. It was simply rejected, and the reparation terms were left indefinite, possibly giving the impression to the Germans that it was no use their making any offer, because the Allies were determined not to accept anything which they regarded as reasonable. I am very glad that all that is now a thing of the past, and that we are going to behave, not with kindness to the Germans—I do not care a bit about that—but with greater good sense, in view of the necessity for Europe, and even for the world, that you should not keep the present state of things permanently in existence in Central Europe. I hope very much that at the Spa Conference the question of reparation will be finally settled, and that it will be possible then, no doubt, greatly to simplify the question. If you once get a fixed sum of money, you will be able to simplify the rather complicated reparation terms that exist in the Treaty.
I pass from that to another matter. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. A. Williams) has just delivered an eloquent speech in favour of Armenia, and I need not add anything. I am certain, to the arguments that he used. With almost all of them I am, in fact, in hearty agreement, and I only want to remind the House, and particularly those Members of the House—not the Government, who have never shown the slightest sign of sympathising with that kind of criticism —who say we cannot afford to be phil-anthropical. This is not a question of philanthropy, but of obligation It is a
question of philanthropy also, but that is not the obligation under which we are pledged. We are under the most solemn obligation of our pledged national word it is possible to be under. Over and over again during the War every Government and every Minister said in the most solemn way, "We are going to liberate the Armenians from the suzerainty of the Turk," and that is the obligation which rests on us especially, apart from the obligation on the Allies. The statement has been made over and over again by representatives of the British Government, and there is no obligation that we entered into during the War which is more specific, more clear, and more definite than that. Therefore, I am very glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that all the rumours which, among others, have been going about as to proposals for a very unsatisfactory settlement of the Armenian question are altogether and entirely baseless. I approve most fully of the solution that the French should undertake the guardianship of the Cilician part of the Armenian question, and I am very glad to hear that there is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that has been made that they do no intend to carry out that obligation. The only thing I would venture to add to what my hon. Friend has said on the subject is that we cannot shift our responsibility on to the French shoulders altogether. We are bound, absolutely and nationally bound, in this matter, and we have guaranteed, so to speak, that the French will in fact carry out the duties they have undertaken. I have not the least doubt that they will, but the obligation rests on us, and we cannot get out of it by merely saying that the French have undertaken it, and we have no further obligation in the matter.
There is a matter in connection with Armenia that I want to say a word about, and I am very glad the Prime Minister is here to hear me. There has been—I do not quite know how it arose—a certain misunderstanding apparently in the public mind about the position of the Council of the League of Nations in regard to the Armenian question. As I understand the facts, what happened was this. In the course of the negotiations in London a proposal was made to the Council of the League by, I think, the British Government, that the Council should
undertake the mandate for Armenia. The Council replied with an elaborate memorandum which has, in fact, been published, in which they pointed out that they were unable, with no money and no force, to undertake a mandate, nor, indeed, was that their proper function under the Covenant, but that they were ready and willing to do their utmost to persuade and induce some member of the League to undertake the Randate. They proceeded to put various questions to the Supreme Council as to what would be the practical method of carrying that out, and they went on to say that they would recommend the Assembly of the League, among other things, to undertake the financial obligations in the matter. A most unfortunate telegram was published —I have no doubt it was entirely unauthorised by the British delegation— from San Remo stating quite curtly that the Council of the League had refused the mandate. I think that was an unfortunate statement, and I am led to make two observations about it. In the first place, I trust the Government will use all their influence on the Council of the League to promote the greatest amount of publicity possible. When the Council first met they laid it down that they proposed to publish their conclusions always, and when possible to allow publication of the discussions as well. As a matter of fact, it seems to me—I am merely looking at it from outside—as if that has got gradually whittled down until now we have very little more than the kind of perfunctory communiqué to the Press, with a few reasons added, which was given at the last meeting at Paris. I may be wrong, and it may be that the publication of what took place was not sufficiently widely undertaken by the ordinary agencies, but that was the impression given, and I am quite sure that nothing will be more vital or more valuable to the discussions of this Council than that they should be published as often as possible and in every case when it is at all consistent with the great interests which are entrusted to them. If there had been sufficient publicity about them, there never could have arisen this misconception that they had refused this mandate.
There is another thing which is very curious, and in regard to which I should be very glad of an explanation. I put
down a question on the subject, but was asked to postpone it, because my right hon. Friend would rather deal with it on Monday next, the day to which it is postponed. As I understand it, according to the statements which have been made, what happened was that after the misunderstanding tool place, the authorities of the League proposed to publish the whole correspondence, and they received the assent of all the representatives on the Council, including the representatives of the British Delegation, but at the last minute they received a telegram from the Supreme Council telling them they must not publish it. I do not understand how any confusion and difficulty of that kind can have arisen. I cannot help feeling that there is a tendency in some quarters to regard the Council of the League as a thing quite apart from the Governments which are represented on the League, and they are bound, of course, as in every other international matter, by every decision and every agreement that is come to by their representatives on the Council, and it would be quite destroying the whole function and value of the Council, and it would be quite destroying the whole function and value of the Council if there should get about an impression that the action of the representative on the council is something apart from and not binding on the Government which he represents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea both urged that, as soon as possible after the Spa Conference, the meetings of the Supreme Council should come to an end. I also hold that view very strongly. At present you have in existence in Europe two international bodies—the Supreme council and the Council of the League. It is the body which is regarded as the chief international instrument, and that is fatal to the Council of the League. We really must be in earnest in this matter, and it is, I think, vital to the future of the of the world that we should be. I would like to mention that, connected with the League of Nations' Union, we received a communication from a body in Italy the other day, and I venture to read one sentence from it, because it seems to me
to put this point with extreme clearness. It is:
Unless the Supreme Council die, the League of Nations cannot be born; the power of the former annihilates the authority of the latter.
That seems to me a striking way of putting what I am sure is the truth of this matter, and I venture to press it very strongly. I cannot help feeling—I may be wrong entirely—that an opportunity was missed in not utilising the Council of the League in connection with the Ruhr dispute itself. There may have been reasons, with which I am not acquainted, which made it impossible, but as I understand the Ruhr dispute, it was this The Germans sent a force into the Ruhr, and the French alleged—I do not know with what accuracy or not, but as far as I could see quite accurately—that in doing so the Germans committed an infraction of their obligation under the letter of 8th August last year, because they sent in a larger force than they were permitted to under that letter. It may have been a technical infraction—I do not know—but there was a dispute arising out of a breach of a Treaty between two countries which were at peace with one another, because once the Treaty had been ratified they were at peace. It seems to me eminently a matter which might have been brought before the Council of the League, and I cannot help feeling that there would have been great advantage in doing it. For one thing, it would have emphasised that we had passed definitely from the atmosphere of war to that of peace, that we were now prepared to employ the regular method of settling disputes between nations, even when they arose between those who were lately belligerents. The articles in the Covenant were quite plain, and I cannot help feeling that it would have been a desirable thing to do, That is only one instance of what I mean. I am not saying it particularly of this Government, but the Allies turn naturally, not to the League of Nations, but to the Supreme Council, and as long as you do that you are in the atmosphere of war. The Supreme Council was brought into existence for the purpose of war and for the purpose of conducting the peace negotiations, and as long as it is there we have not definitely passed out of the condition of war. I venture to say this to my right hon. Friend, and I trust he will agree. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing), in the course of
7.0 P.M.
questions, referred to what he regarded as "this Gilbertian League." That is an attitude of mind which does not always find open expression, but undoubtedly exists among a certain class of persons in this country. It is an absurdity, mere theoretic nonsense, which has no real value at all. It may be right, but then let us say so boldly. On the other hand, if it is not right, then the League is our true weapon. If we really do believe that another war will certainly annihilate European civilisation, then everything must be tried to safeguard humanity against such a disaster again. We must put every ounce into our effort to make the League a success, and sweep away everything which hampers our progress, and if it is to discharge its exceedingly difficult functions, it must be given every possible prestige and authority which the governments of the world can give. We must make it the sole organ of international action. It must be all or nothing. That is the essential feature, and I venture to press my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, to give this House some hope that, at the earliest possible moment, the whole existing apparatus, including the Supreme Council, will be definitely dispensed with, and that we may see established as the great organ of peace the League of Nations, with its Council, Assembly, and all other essentials.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Prime Minister, in his speech, said no word about Fiume. We should like to be assured that that is on the way to settlement between Jugo-Slavia and Italy, and that the question will not come up before the Supreme Council any more, but that, if there is any lack of agreement in that case, the dispute should be referred to the Council of the League of Nations rather than to the Supreme Council, and that at last we may rid ourselves of the Fiume trouble so far as our own country is concerned. We, on these Benches, are extremely glad to see the Prime Minister back, and to see that he enjoyed himself at San Remo, and is looking so well. He thinks he has done well, and I am not at all certain he has not done very well when he gets away from some of his associates. He has attributed his success at San Remo—and very rightly, I think —to the frankness with which all the subjects were discussed. The cards were
put upon the table, and frankness was the spirit which prevailed. I think he might apply the same principles to the difficulties which separate him from Labour opinion in this country. Let us have a little frankness. The Labour people in this country are interested in foreign politics. They are interested particularly in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, and it is well to be frank and explain to the Prime? Minister what it is that Labour objects to in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. Wherever I go I find the same fear expressed, that the present Government are playing the democracy of this country false.
Take the Ruhr dispute. The Prime Minister probably does not know what the common people in this country were saying, that they were afraid all the time that the Government were, as usual, helping the militarists against the democracy. They are not very clear what the Ruhr rising was—whether it was a Red rising, or a mere socialist rising, or a mere protest against the Kapp revolution—but they saw that the Government Were rather anxious than otherwise that the Baltic troops and officials should go into the Ruhr and the French should not intervene, and if there has been any sort of feeling in this country against the Prime Minister, in his contest with the French Prime Minister, it has been because it was felt that the fewer troops that were sent to the Ruhr the better, particularly when those troops included General Von Watter and the Baltic troops, and so we said that the militarists were again being backed by this country against what we may quite wrongly think, but what we do think, was perhaps the only democratic party which had retained any sort of weight in Germany. Take the Kapp revolution itself. There, too, we on these Benches had a sort of feeling all the time that our representatives—not necessarily our Foreign Office representatives—but our military representatives in Berlin were rather backing up and encouraging that movement, instead of urging its suppression. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The wireless station at Nanen, I think, was in charge of the British naval men. [An HON MEMBER: "That has been denied."] Well, the rumour was in Germany that that wireless station was being used for
Kapp's Orders in Council and propaganda business. The very fact that we sent a peer like Lord Kilmarnock to a democratic country gives rise to the idea that all over Europe we are trying to build up again the aristocratic Junker royalist movement that has been suppressed by the War.
If you look at Hungary you see the same thing. Wherever there is a reactionary movement, wherever there is a White Terror following on a successful reactionary movement, the Government—not the Government here, I think, so much as their representatives abroad—seem rather to welcome the new state of affairs Wherever there is a Red Terror, we have any amount of propaganda, publicity and denunciation; but where there is a White. Terror we do not find the same willingness to interfere in order to stop it. We maintain that you should be just as firm in interfering, so far as the White Terror is concerned, as well as when the Red Terror is concerned. Whether it be Finland, Hungary or Russia, our interests in suppressing that sort of thing ought to be equally strongly enforced by our Government; but all along we have the feeling that, although the Prime Minister himself is all right, although perhaps the Government here is all right, although they merely want to suppress these movements, and to hold the balance fairly over Europe between the Reds and the Whites, between revolution and reaction, yet our agents in those countries, being naturally militarists by profession, always tend to assist those parties with whom we on these Benches have nothing in common. There is a sense of unfairness in the whole thing.
Then take this Russian question. There, too, we have hands held up to-day in holy horror, in protest against having any sort of commercial relations with people of such shocking morals as the Russian socialists at the present time. We traded with the Russian Tsarists through all the horrors of that régime. Is it not about time to drop this wonderful Puritan attitude, and consider whether we cannot trade with people, even if we cannot see eye to eye with their political views? The Government have come to the decision, after waiting a year and a half on the Labour party, that it is their duty to open trade relations with Russia, in spite of their bad principles. But although the Government have come
to that decision, you find that during the last two or three months America, Scandinavia and all other countries are setting themselves to obtain concessions to get in on the ground floor of Russia, while we are making up our minds whether we are to have anything on the top storey. The Government wish to open up trade relations and communicate with the Soviet Government, and they ask them to protect the refugees in the Crimea.
The Government, I believe, are honestly trying to prevent this mad escapade on the part of Poland, but the emissaries of the Government, whether in Poland or in the Black Sea, or whether military men at Warsaw, or naval men on our ships in the Black Sea, do not approve of the Government policy—to be quite frank—and they are a long way off, and they carry on an entirely different policy of their own. I do not believe they are inspired by the War Office here—at least not now—although there is a curious chapter which is worth publishing when the time comes. I do not believe the Government is responsible, but you have battleships bombarding socialists whilst walking along roads by the Black Sea nowhere near the Crimea. A British warship sees an army of Bolsheviks going along and immediately open fire. Is that the sort of terms on which you ought to be with people you are approaching about trade relations, and in order that they may protect some of your friends in Russia. It is simply that the Government have got two policies. There is the policy of the Prime Minister, the policy of commonsense, the policy of Prinkipo, On the one hand you say, "Go for the Soviet Government; we will soon persuade the Prime Minister that that is the best line," and at the same time you have the Prime Minister going to San Remo, getting hold of people of sense like himself, squaring matters up, and then finding, after coming to a satisfactory solution, that the fat is in the fire again through these mad militarists all over Europe. There is only one thing for the Prime Minister to do, and that is to insist on subordinates not taking matters into their own hands, to insist that the War Office and the Foreign Office shall definitely take no further part in assisting the reactionaries to recover their old power in Europe. We do
not want to have the kings and emperors back. We do not want to have the the Junkers back. We do not want to have Britain assisting in the suppression of mutiny, even if it be Red mutiny. We want Lenin and Trotsky rather than that we should interfere in order to place worse men than Lenin and Trotsky in their place. We want absolute frankness in these matters. We want to know whether the Prime Minister really wishes to see Europe built up on a democratic basis without kings or aristocracies, or whether he is going to have his hands forced by the militarists and aristocracy of this country who wish to see the old system established once more. This country is now a hot-bed of ex-Royalists and ex-Grand Dukes. They are using this country as a basis for all their machinations. They are using our militarists abroad to assist their schemes, and unless the Government put down their foot we shall have a reaction all over Europe, and the re-establishment of the bad old world that we all hoped this War had destroyed.

Major Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite seems to be suffering from a nightmare in which the whole world seems to be composed of those wicked and aggressive individuals who wish to destroy the simple, innocent and humane rule of the Bolsheviks. To him and some of his fellows, Lenin and Trotsky are the highest type of development that we have seen in this very imperfect world. It is characteristic of him, and those who sit around him, that every word he has said on that subject was received with enthusiastic cheers by those who, in many cases, have taken no part in the War, and who saw nothing of it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Question!

Mr. MILLS: A Press censor!

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman suggests that I was a Press censor it is an insulting observation.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY (to Mr. Mills): Withdraw, withdraw!

Earl WINTERTON: I fought as a combatant soldier throughout the War. I only wished to call attention to what I think is the extraordinary attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in saying that our troops, our soldiers, generals, and admirals in the Black Sea, Baltic, and elsewhere deliberately fail to carry out
the orders of the Government. That is a most gross slur upon them, and, I believe, and I think the majority of the House thinks with me, that they are carrying out the orders of the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I say I did not mean that they were deliberately obeying orders? If I have given that impression I did not mean to.

Major HILLS: You said so!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I intended to say was that where they have no instructions they act according to their own lights. They ought to have definite instructions to carry out the policy of the Government and cease making war on people with whom we are engaged in making peace.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not see very much distinction between the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and what I have said. The effect of what he said—and the impression I think the House got—was that our generals and admirals were not following out the policy of His Majesty's Government. I say that is untrue, or perhaps it would be more Parliamentary to say it is inaccurate. Such observations are calculated to give a most grave impression in foreign countries even when they fall from the lips of the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose irresponsibility in these, matters is well-known. He has denied any intention of suggesting disobedience, but this does not prevent all kinds of innuendoes against those who are carrying out a most difficult task in supporting British prestige in the Baltic and in the Black Sea. I should like to hear this question debated—if the time could be allowed—by the hon. Gentleman and by various of his friends, in order that we might really know where their party is in this matter. If in the course of Debate the word "Bolshevik" is suggested against hon. Gentlemen opposite, the utmost indignation is exhibited, yet every speech that praises the Bolsheviks is cheered enthusiastically, and the names of Lenin and Trotsky are mentioned by them with every sign of approbation. I consider it is time we knew what exactly is the attitude of the Parliamentary Labour party on this question.
I turn from that to deal with the subject about which I rose to speak.[HON.
MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am glad, however, I have had the opportunity of making the few observations I have, and I make no apology for having said what I have done, for I believe the majority of the House of Commons supports the attitude I have taken up. I wish to say a word as to the mandate on Palestine. In a short time it will be too late to speak effectively on this matter, for there will be no alteration possible to the Treaty. Before that happens, I do think the House should consider carefully one or two points in connection with the settlement. Let me say, in the first place, that I, in common with, I suppose, the majority of people in this country, responsible people, entirely support the declaration made on behalf of the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) in his famous declaration in December, 1917, in regard to the settlement of Palestine on a Zionist basis. Here, I think, I shall have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I think, however, that it is most important that two considerations in connection with this settlement should be presented to the House and the country. One is that the rights of the existing Palestinian inhabitants, especially the Moslems and Christians, the resident cultivators, should be carefully safeguarded. The vast majority of the resident cultivators of Palestine are very poor men. Ninety per cent. are either Christian or Moslem. The Jews form less than 10 per cent, of the whole of the inhabitants, and of that 10 per cent. the majority are in the towns engaged in the small retail trade, money-lending and occupations of that kind. Therefore, if there is to be any settlement of Jews from abroad, I think the rights of the existing cultivators must be most carefully safeguarded. I think the House will give a general assent to that proposition.
The other matter, which I consider of the greatest importance—and I think I may say I have a considerable knowledge of the country and of Arabia and Syria, and I cannot speak with sufficient earnestness on this subject—is that if we are not to be engaged in a continual series of frontier wars, the frontiers between Zionist Palestine and Arabia should be most carefully delimited. I was one of those who fought in that
country, both with the Arabs and against them. I fought against them in 1916, that is, against the Sinai Arabs. I took part on several occasions in operations against them. Latterly, in 1918, when practically the whole of the Arabs had come over to our side, I, with other British officers, took part in the Arabian campaign. It is perfectly well known that in order to assist the Arabs against the Turks, and in their raids against the Turks, we gave them considerable supplies of ammunition. The Turks only occupied a portion of Arabia before the war. The greater portion of the country they did not attempt to occupy. Even in the portion that they occupied, which adjoins the Hedjaz railway, they were essentially in the position of a foreign army in a foreign land. The representatives of the Arabs in the Turkish Parliament constantly made the sort of speech that we hear from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor). They constantly made speeches to that effect, and their attitude was that the Turks had no right to be in Arabia at all; they should leave Arabia. They were foreigners in a foreign land. The Arabs carried on this campaign with considerable success. The Arabs in those days were not so fully armed as now, as a result of the aid we gave them to carry on their campaign against the Turks during the War. What is, therefore, the position to-day?
The Arabs proper are more or less directly under the headship, I think perhaps that is the best epithet to apply, of the Emir Feisul. Obeying his orders are perhaps 50,000, practised in the use of the rifle and using a number of machine guns and some aeroplanes as well. It is perfectly obvious that unless some sort of settlement is come to—let us face the facts—between the French and ourselves and the Arabs, that this question will be a running sore in the Near East for years and years. I say this to show how dangerous is the situation. May I recall to the House the information which has appeared in the Press to-day and yesterday in which it is shown that raiding parties of Arabs have made an attack in Palestine, and in fact have inflicted quite sufficiently serious casualties to British and to Indian troops. There is no excuse for what they have done. I think it is deplorable. These raiders, I think it is
clear, belong to one of the big desert tribes who inhabit the country on the opposite side of the Jordan. The only way in which these tribes can be controlled—again I put the case frankly—is by some arrangement with the Emir Feisul. If an arrangement was come to with him it would enable him sufficiently to use his influence with these tribes to prevent them raiding Palestine and so prevent that general disturbance which is going on in the country. I have the honour to enjoy the personal friendship of the Emir, and I, therefore, hesitate to make much use of his name on an occasion like this, but my own belief is that he is doing everything he can to restrain too great a Nationalistic spirit on the part of his own people. It must be remembered that this is the first time for 600 years that they are in their present position. They took a very large share in defeating their hereditary enemy, the Turk, and it is not to be expected that these people are going at the moment, in spite of any arrangements of the Allied Powers, to give up the legitimate aspirations with which they fought in the War.
I therefore venture, with the utmost respect—for the matter has hardly been touched upon to-day by the Prime Minister—to press upon him, and through him, upon the Allied Supreme Council the supreme need for coming to some arrangement with the Emil Feisul which will enable the legitimate aspirations of the Arab people to have proper vent. I say that without such an arrangement— and I think it is necessary to say it with the utmost emphasis—that both the French and ourselves will have a period of the utmost difficulty in carrying out the mandate which has been given us respectively for Palestine and Syria. It would be intolerable if the legitimate hopes of the Zionists were in any way affected by serious disturbances in that country. I deplore the attacks which have been made by the Arabs upon the peaceable inhabitants of Palestine, but we have got to realise that this irritation, this running sore, does exist, and, short of military operations on an enormous scale, which I do not believe either the French or ourselves are prepared to face at the present time, the only way which I think is absolutely essential is to come to some arrangement with the Emil Feisul and his representative men. May I mention the fact which
is known to the Prime Minister, and, I think, also to many Members of this House, that the greatest pressure has been brought to bear upon the Emir Feisul lately by Mustapha Kernel and the Nationalists in Turkey to take part in an anti-British and anti-French campaign? The Emil Feisul has indignantly rejected the offer. He has defended, at the same time, the attitude he is taking up in demanding for his country the rights to which his people are entitled. Yet he has said he does not want the assistance of people who were in league with and fought by the side of Germany. That has been his attitude. Therefore there is all the more reason why care should be taken to arrive at a settlement that will satisfy him and his people.
There is only one other point that I will put to the Prime Minister, and that relates to the boundary between Palestine and Arabia. So long ago as 1918 there was a conference as to boundaries between the Emir Feisul and a representative of the Zionists. I am talking of the boundaries on the South. It is of the utmost importance, if the Zionists are to enjoy a peaceful life in Palestine, that the River Jordan should be the boundary between them and the Arabs. I understand that it is not agreed that the River Jordan should be the boundary, but it is desired that the land on the other side of Jordan should be adopted as the boundary. In my opinion that country could never be occupied by the present cultivators, who form the great bulk of those who get their living on the land in that district. It will be impossible for us to protect any Zionist colony there without a large force of cavalry and aeroplanes. For these reasons I hope that the River Jordan will be made the boundary between the Zionists and the Arabs.
I hope that those two great peoples, the Jews and the Arabs, may live together in the future on terms of amity and friendship, and that the assistance that they can be to each other may be forthcoming. A fratricidal struggle has been threatened by the delay which took place between the Armistice and the Peace Conference in settling this country, and this was aggravated by the mischievous attitude of certain Continental newspapers. I am convinced that this country, great as are the responsibilities and problems it has to face in Europe, has no greater
responsibility, and no greater problem to face, than that of placing on a peace basis the Near East, Palestine, and Northern Arabia.

Mr. O'CONNOR: As I have been fighting the battle of the Armenians for the last 43 or 44 years, I could not allow a Debate of this kind, in which their fate is involved, to pass without saying a few-words. My hon. Friend, the Member for Durham (Mr. A. Williams), has put the case so admirably that I will not attempt to add anything to what he has said. I wish to express my profound regret that we have to deal only with a small instead of a large Armenia.
I wish to refer to some observations made with reference to America, by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I am not quite so hopeless about America as my hon. Friend. I assure the House, and I speak from intimate personal experience, that the feeling of sympathy with the Armenians in America is more widespread and profound than the feelings of any other people in the world, not excepting my own people. Whilst I was in America recently, I addressed several meetings on the question of Armenia, and I can say that there is not a Sunday school in America in which there is not every Sunday a regular subscription made even by the children for the people of Armenia. Mention has been made of the difficulty of dealing with Armenia, and it is said that a sum of £10,000,000 may be required to assist that country. May I point out that the £10,000,000 will all come back again because the Armenians are a very thrifty and laborious people.
I wonder if my hon. Friend realises the fact that already nearly £7,000,000 have been sent by the people of the United States of America for the assistance of the Armenian people. The Prime Minister must know by this time that their constitutional methods are different from ours. I am convinced that there is in America an immense fund of idealism and character, and an appeal to the profoundly widespread sympathy of the people of that country in favour of the people of Armenia would not be made in vain. I have been fighting this method for 43 years, and what makes me feel so strongly about it is this. Twice, if not three times, in my own lifetime we have given back the Armenians to the Turks.
We gave them back after the Crimean War when the Treaty of St. Stephano was accepted by Lord Beaconsfield, and in the Treaty of Berlin, with the result that 1,500,000 Armenians have been since murdered.
I agree that we cannot, in this matter, relieve ourselves of our primary responsibility. I say nothing about Cicilia. The last word I have to say is this: I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister about the Chaldeans. The right hon. Gentleman told me that it would be more convenient to raise the point now, and therefore I will accept his invitation to say a few words about it. The Chaldeans have been placed in a most unfortunate position. I am sure that the Prime Minister must be acquainted with the fact that among the people who sent their soldiers to fight side by side with us in the last War the Chaldeans hold a high place, and they sacrificed many lives in order to make our cause a success. If they died for the liberty of the world in this way, then I think they should get something like protection and liberty themselves. I have been asked by bishops and representatives of the Chaldeans to say a few words on any occasion that was appropriate in favour of their cause. I do not know whether the Prime Minister saw the Chaldean delegates at San Remo.

The PRIME MINISTER: No

Mr. O'CONNOR: Had he done so, I can assure the Prime Minister he would have met two as cultivated and as able gentlemen as any who were at that Conference. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has read their memorial.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR: They had, I believe, a more or less homogeneous territory, and I believe the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Allies, has promised them protection for their lives and property. They also want a form of self-government, the extent of which will, of course, depend upon the conditions. I was speaking to them about the necessity of obtaining relief for their starving people, but they brushed that aside as a matter that really did not make so strong an appeal to them as the importance of maintaining their political traditions. They were more desirous of preserving their great historic race, and developing themselves under a government of their own people.

Mr. BILLING: rose—

The PRIME MINISTER: I see that there is quite an array of speakers who desire to address the House, and if I give way to one I must give way to the others. There are a good many question which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have asked me, and I will do my best to give an answer to them. May I just make this observation? I started this afternoon by claiming that the decisions of the San Remo Conference had given universal satisfaction in all the Allied conuntries. I am glad to find that the Debate in the House of Commons this afternoon is no exception. The mere fact that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) has taken a different view only helps to accentuate the opinion of all sections in this country. I shall now endeavour to deal with the two or three questions which have been put to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who has done a great service in that quarter of the world, has put some questions to me about the Arab position. I entirely agree with what he said as to the overwhelming importance of coming to an understanding with the Emir Feisul, because I am sure that is the best guarantee of peace and good government for that part of the world. I do not hesitate for a moment to predict that it will not be difficult to come to an understanding with the Emir Feisul. In the course of the last year or two I have had a good deal to do with him, and my Noble Friend had a good deal to do with him before that, and I have seen others who have been associated with him. I have no hesitation in saying that a more loyal, straightforward ruler, or a better man to deal with, it would be impossible to have, and I am perfectly certain that his anxiety is to collaborate with the Allies in peace as he worked and fought with them in war.
It is not merely his desire, but he is a sufficiently sagacious ruler to know that it is in his interests and the interests of his people to work faithfully with the French and with ourselves. We are the only powers in that quarter of the globe to give him the assistance which is essential if he is to build up a strong and stable Government. He has a very considerable task. Practically he has to build up the power of a new people who have not enjoyed self-government for hundreds and hundreds of years. They
have to be taught self-reliance, administration and the art of government. They have to be taught how to contribute towards the government, and how to bear the burdens of government, and to exercise all the restraints of a self-governing people. He is a very capable man, and I am sure he will realise that his only hope of success is to work loyally with the French and British Governments in this matter, as he has done in the past. One of the decisions come to at San Remo was to invite him to Paris in the course of the next few weeks. I have no reason to think he will not accept the invitation. I am sure it is vital to his interests, as well as to the interests of the two countries who have undertaken these responsibilities, that we should discuss matters with him and come to an understanding, as I hope will be possible in the course of our meeting.
I come next to the question raised by several hon. Members with regard to Armenia. I do not know what is meant by the Greater or the Lesser Armenia. I do know that some of the Armenian, I will not say ambitions, but aspirations, have been of a rather colossal character. They are beyond anything that could be realised under present conditions. They involved at one time an Armenian Kingdom from sea to sea—from the Mediteran-nean right up to the Black Sea, over a gigantic tract of country with a population of which the Armenians constituted, unfortunately, but a small percentage. It would be an impossible achievement to ordain that. It would certainly provoke further disaster. They could not possibly maintain their position there alone. They could only do so by the help of a great country like America. With regard to the boundaries of Armenia, we have left that question to the arbitrament of President Wilson, and in spite of what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney, I say with all confidence he will discharge the duty with great fairness, judgment and sympathy.

Mr. BILLING: Why not give it to the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the League of Nations would certainly approve of the action taken by the Supreme Council. Now I come to what has been called the French "Protectorate." That is not the correct
word. The French are to exercise guardianship over the minority in Cilicia. I believe there are considerable forces in that Province and there is a struggle going on which I hope will, in the end, achieve the result of securing efficient protection for these poor threatened people. But I assure my hon. Friends that we cannot dissociate ourselves from the responsibility that is cast upon us by our pledges in respect of the Armenians. If the United States of America feel that they cannot take direct responsibility, we shall have to reconsider the whole position, and will undoubtedly take our share in the matter of helping the Armenian community to equip themselves for their very difficult and perilous task. That is as far as I can go at the present moment with reference to Armenia. I am sorry that my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) is not here, as he put two or three questions to me.

Earl WINTERTON: He has a political engagement, I believe.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will make one or two references to what he said. He called attention to the position in reference to the indemnity and reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. He has not quite fairly represented that position, probably through lack of a very close acquaintance with the terms of the Treaty. Under the Treaty we had to give schedules of all the claims for reparation made against Germany. If they were to be adjudicated upon, any lawyer would know that it would involve an enormously prolonged operation to ascertain what reparation should be made for the damage done. We are anxious to shorten that period, not only in the interests of France and of the other Allies, but also in the interests of Germany. We quite agree with my Noble Friend that it is better for the Germans to know the exact amount of their liability. We invited Germany to submit to us proposals for a lump sum. She has not done it, and although my Noble Friend suggested reasons why she had not been able to do it, I would point out she has the remedy in her own hands.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How could Germany tell what was her taxable capacity until the Silesian pleébiscite had been taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the question. It is not a question of taxable capacity. The question is what is due for reparation and what Germany proposes to pay in that respect.

Captain BENN: The amount she can pay.

Mr. BILLING: And we are to wait for it meantime.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend's (Captain Benn) interruption is really an answer to the point raised by my Noble Friend. If the Germans cannot even now say what they are going to pay, what is the good of trying to fix a sum? Four months have elapsed and she is now no nearer getting the information. I say this is complete justification for what was put in the Treaty, namely, that the Germans should be allowed four months in which to make their proposal. My hon. Friend opposite says they could not possibly have done it because they did not know whether they would have Silesia or not. That is rather an argument against putting in a lump sum. Germany has not complained because that provision for the plebiscite was put in the Treaty—indeed she wanted it to be inserted. It was purely a concession to Germany, and they were very grateful for it. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn) before he indulges in these interruptions should know something of the alphabet of the subject. I come to the other point raised by my Noble Friend. He wants to have the meetings of the Supreme Council wound up as rapidly as possible and the League of Nations substituted for it. So, too, does my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. Can he tell me at what stage that could be done effectively?

Sir S. HOARE: I said it should be done after the Conference at Spa.

8.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion then is not a criticism of anything done up to the present, but of something which may or may not be done later. I am never very much afraid of these ante-dated criticisms. I have no doubt at all that the time will come when we can substitute the operations of the League of Nations for the Supreme Council. But that time has not arrived yet. We have not got the Treaty with Turkey. Germany is not in a position
in which she can join the League of Nations, and, what is still more important, and we may as well recognise facts, the whole fabric in Europe rests on this pillar—the Alliance of the three great solid Powers in the West. If they handed over the direction and responsibility at this moment to any body which has not got the necessary force behind it, it would be disastrous to the peace of Europe. My Noble Friend surely must realise what a difficult position we should be in. Some sort of indication of that position is obtainable from the descriptions given me by our officers in Europe. We have the whole of Europe, more or less, in that condition except these three Powers, and if those three Powers withdrew from the direction of affairs it would be disastrous to the peace of the world. America for the moment has withdrawn. She is not in the League of Nations or on the Supreme Council. Her representatives came to our meeting at San Remo purely as note-takers. These are grave matters and the fate of the world depends on them. America, I repeat, is out of the League of Nations and for all practical purposes she is out of the Supreme Council. Germany is not in a position to take her part. Russia certainly is not. What other Power is there? Let us deal with facts. There are only three Powers that have got the strength, force, organisation and will to direct the affairs of Europe at the present moment, and they are the three Powers which met at San Remo. Until there is some other body with power, organisation, force and will behind it, it is idle to wind up the Supreme Council. I am all for substituting the League of Nations for the Supreme Council when the time comes—when it is perfectly clear that you can do it. I believe in these meetings; they clear up misunderstandings. I have had some experience of them. They make me understand, every time I go there, why there have been wars. You go there with misconceptions, with misunderstandings about something which is cleared up the moment you come face to face with the men who are really directing affairs in other countries. There have been wars in which the people in each country honestly believed that the other was to blame. When those who have the direction of affairs in one country come to discuss matters with the
representatives of other countries, these things vanish. That is why I am a believer in this direct dealing which has been born out of the War. The Supreme Council is the beginning of the League of Nations. It is a co-operation of a certain number of countries organised for peace. And it will develop. The time will come when the League of Nations will undertake these great responsibilities, when those who are directly responsible for the direction of affairs, must go to the League to speak for their respective countries. The time has not come yet.
I speak as a friend, as a supporter, as a believer in the League. I have never taken part in any jeer against it. I say here in all solemnity that when I look at all the explosive material that is in the world, national, racial, religious, traditional—the hatreds, enmities, jealousies, greeds, all ready to rouse nations to tear each other, I can see no hope except in a federation of the people, where the men who are really responsible come to talk face to face. When these quarrels happen between nations, the men who have the responsibility for war would, I know, in their inmost hearts be glad if there were any reason for avoiding or delaying it. Therefore, I am a believer in the League, and I shall join nobody in any effort either to decry, or despise, or disdain, or destroy it. It is, however, no kindness to the League to try and precipitate its action. We have only to look at what happened over this Armenian question to see that the League itself feels that the moment has not come when it can undertake definite responsibilities and direct action. They were not asked to accept a mandate, but a sort of guardianship over Armenia. They practically referred it back to the Supreme Council. Why? Because they realised that the Supreme Council alone could act. My Noble Friend asked me why we have not published our reply. The reason is that that reply has been sent to President Wilson, and until President Wilson has replied it would be eminently discourteous to publish it. We have nothing to conceal in that respect, but it does include a letter we have written to President Wilson, and until he has sent his reply, it would not be fair to publish it, and in any event we can only publish it with his consent. I think I have covered most of the ground
which has been travelled over, except the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I really do not quite understand his position. He is a man of principle, but his principle fluctuates according to its application. For instance he is a non-interventionist in Russia—why? Non-intervention suits the Reds. In Germany he is an interventionist—why? Because intervention suits the Reds. He really cannot have it both ways.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He does not want it always the wrong way.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, the very criticism he directed against some of my colleagues is a criticism applicable to himself. He says that when it suits the Whites we have a certain policy, but when it suits the Reds we adopt an opposite policy. He is doing exactly the same.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Let us strike a bargain and neither do it.

The PRIME MINISTER: He says, "This German Government"! Well, it is the chosen Government. It is the only Government; it is the de facto Government; it is the de jure Government. He says, "Do not allow it to establish order. You should not do it." Why? Because he does not believe it; he likes these communes. He says, "If people like to establish communes, whether in the Ruhr Valley or in Staffordshire, let them do it."

Mr. BILLING: Or in Wales!

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; and therefore he would not interfere, and would not allow the German Government to interfere. We really cannot adopt that policy; we have taken an absolutely different policy. He suggested that there has been some encouragement to this militarist enterprise in Berlin given by certain of our people.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Hear, hear!

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether the hon. Member who cheers that observation has any information that would justify that cheer, or could give me a name. I have asked for names; I have not had them yet.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Was not the right hon. Gentleman perfectly aware last year that Von der Goltz was collecting, training and organising troops?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not what he is charging us with. What has Von der Goltz last year to do with it? The hon. Member knows that the charge made is that the Kapp Putsch was encouraged by British officers. I asked for the names of those British officers. I have made careful inquiries, and there is not an atom of truth in the charge. I asked that an officer should be sent over to me, in order that I might enquire into the matter, and I found that, so far from their having encouraged it, our officers discouraged it—they were opposed to it—they thought it was a futile and mischievous thing. They went to the German Government, and made it absolutely clear to them that they had nothing whatever to do with it. They refused to go anywhere near Kapp, but someone who came to them and asked on behalf of Kapp was told distinctly that they would have nothing to do with it. It is really mischievous to circulate these rumours and reports. It is not merely mischievous to the German Government, but it encourages the other people. So far from doing harm to militarism, it encourages militarism, for it is said, "It is stated in the House of Commons that the British military authorities are in favour of a movement of that kind." They were against it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Prime Minister got up in his place when this Kapp Putsch was on—this was on the second day of the Putsch—and said, on information he had received from Berlin, that the movement was spreading and getting more serious. That information must have come from our people in Berlin. Therefore, they, by their telegrams, were encouraging the success of the Putsch.

The PRIME MINISTER: This is the kind of information on which a grave charge is brought against the honour of British officers. I am surprised that a gallant officer—the hon. and gallant Gentleman has shown his courage—should make such a charge. There is not an atom of truth in the report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said we wanted frankness. These reports have been published all over Germany, and they are known all over this country, and amongst the working-classes. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to offer an apology—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was going to do so if you had not interrupted me.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper way to address the Chair The hon and gallant Gentleman should show more courtesy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am perfectly willing to apologise if I am assumed to have cast any aspersion on the character of British officers. I know them too well. I know perfectly well that although they have admirable characteristics they naturally sympathise with their friends. I am very sorry if anything I have said could be assumed to cast any aspersion on British officers.

The PRIME MINISTER: The statement has been made and circulated in Germany, and that is the ground on which it is to be circulated in this country, to the detriment of the loyalty of British officers to those who command them. The suggestion is that they have, contrary to the orders which they had been given, taken part in a conspiracy in Berlin. I have nothing more to say on that.
With regard to the Chaldeans, I agree with everything that has been said about the assistance which they gave to the British expedition. In Mesopotamia they will now be under British protection. A mandate has been assigned definitely to Britain, therefore they will be under British protection, and we shall have an oversight over them in Kurdistan, because they will be close to the British border. I am perfectly certain when the news reaches there—and it travels quickly—that the whole of that country has been assigned as a mandate to Great Britain, they will feel a measure of confidence which they never felt before. Their real apprehension was that such a policy as that which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) would be accepted by this country, and that the Government, having freed this country from Turkish rule, would hand it back practically to anarchy. That is a policy which the Government cannot accept. We propose to accept that mandate, and in accepting it will give protection to such peoples as those which have been mentioned in the course of the Debate.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Kapp Putsch was due to the demand of the Allies for the handing over of War criminals? The general opinion in Germany is that it was the demand for the War criminals that caused such a stir in public opinion in Germany that Kapp possibly mistook that feeling for support for their movement, and the result was that they raised the flag of revolt, which in its turn set the Reds going in the Ruhr, which in its turn caused the French to occupy Frankfort and so kept the whole country in a state of terror. I think really the important thing is to know what practically the Government intends to do vis-a-vis with Germany. I have no love for the German, but I naturally wish to see the state of Europe settle down. My complaint is that the Government is first irritating the Right by making demands for the extradition of enormous numbers of people, far in excess of what is required, and, on the other hand, by their economic policy causing starvation in Germany, and so supporting the Left. Between the two you get a constant pendulum state of disorder under which it is impossible for Germany to recover. There is a great shortage of food in Germany, and, of course, the children suffer very severely. The Prime Minister knows the great work which has been done by the Friends Mission in all the cities in Germany in feeding the children. Then what about the coal situation? One of the results of the Kapp Putsch and the Ruhr rebellion was that the handing over of coal to France from the Ruhr Valley was stopped for a few days. But Germany is very short of coal. I believe the proportion is about 17 to 10 of the coal she used to have for her own use and the coal she has to-day. Am I right in saying that ploughing cannot go on for want of coal for electric plant, and even agricultural machinery cannot be made because workmen have to be dismissed because there is no coal to run the factories, to say nothing of many other industries which are not as pivotal and fundamental as this?
The question is, are we doing all we should to get Germany economically on to her legs again? It is all very well to talk about the Treaty and enforcing every single line of it After all, that is comparatively unimportant. When we think of the necessity for getting the whole of the
economic life of Europe resettled and restarted, as much in our interest as in the interests of the Germans or anyone else. The interjection of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) during the Prime Minister's speech seemed very relevant about the Army No one objects to the Government being given power to use the Army to suppress disorder, but the question is, does the Government control the Army? When my hon. and gallant Friend said "Junker," I suppose he meant that many people in Germany think that the Government does not control the Army. I should like to ask—I do not know whether the Prime Minister spoke about it during the time I was absent—what is the proposal in regard to the amount of force to be left in the hands of the Government for the suppression of disorder? Is it to be a reichswehr or a constabulary instead of an armed force? Everything turns upon that, and upon the constitution of the Army. If you have had a big military force of millions and you have to reduce it to a small number of hundreds of thousands, it is quite possible that the military party might concentrate in that small force all the elements on which they could rely in the event of any future coup.
The Prime Minister made a moving appeal to the House when he said that the San Remo Conference had been a success because when people met face to face difficulties disappeared. If that is true of three nations it is much more true of five. Why is it that now only for the first time is there to be any conference with the Germans as to the possibilities of securing the indemnity and the settlement of their country. What about Russia? If it is such a good thing at San Remo that people should discuss their difficulties, how is it that we cannot on some point of punctilio receive Russian representatives in some way, and get them to meet round a table at San Remo, or somewhere else? It seems to me that unless we are very careful we shall drive Germany into a state of disorder in which the Reds will get the upper hand, and if that happens Germany, instead of allying herself and interesting herself with Western opinions, will look to the East, and then our troubles will really begin. I believe it is high time that the League of Nations should get practically to work. One hon. Member says it has no reality. There can be no reality in it unless we
ourselves put our credit into the scheme of the League of Nations, and that is exactly what we are not doing.
I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether, in the mandates that we have received, there is any provision for our including the mandatory territories within our scheme of Imperial preference. Of course, he is well aware that in the Budget which passed the House of Commons last year it was provided that these territories might be included, and I should like to know whether they are to be put into our own Imperial preference scheme or not. If he cannot answer now, perhaps he will give an assurance that the terms of the mandate will be laid before the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

Captain BENN: What we want to do is to show our good faith, and to show that these territories for which we are accepting mandates are not territories which we wish to exploit, but territories for which we regard ourselves as the genuine trustee. One hon. Member said a few moments ago that there is no reality about the League of Nations. Why should not the assembly of the League of Nations be called to meet, and why should not Germany be invited to become a member at once of the assembly of the League of Nations, and Russia also, if Russia would accept the invitation. The danger is that unless some steps are taken now things will go much worse. We have millions of people in Germany to-day who would be glad to join the League of Nations. They are in adversity, and they might find in the League of Nations a friend. Those who are the conquerors seem to prefer the Supreme Council, which is a league of the victors. We have here a great nation which may be a substantial and most important part of a real League of Nations. How is it that we cannot ask them to become members of the assembly and to join in the Council of the League of Nations? If we do not, and if we prefer to insist upon small points and upon terms to satisfy the spirit of revenge the real danger will be that the Reds will get the upper hand and then Germany will refuse to join the League of Nations and will rather look to the East and join with Russia and the third Internationale. We are not unmindful of the great work which the Prime
Minister has done, but we are really anxious about this matter, and we fear that as time goes on, and as we fail time after time to show real belief in the League of Nations or take any real steps towards it, the whole idea may come to grief.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I should like to refer to the question of indemnity and our relations with America. May I assure the Prime Minister that he will not gravely disappoint any large section of the community if the vast sums which certain people prophesied we were to receive in the way of indemnity do not in fact materialise? Certain hon. Members have assured the House that some fantastic sums could be obtained from Germany by way of indemnity. With the mark at over 230, and it has been approaching 400 to the shilling, it must be a very curious and wild mind, entirely devoid of the capacity to calculate, that imagines that we are going to receivelarge sums from Germany. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently does not expect it. He was unable to give us any assurance or cheerful news when he introduced his Budget. On the contrary, he budgeted, as any sane and sensible man would budget, on the assumption that each country will have to pay its own cost of the war. When this discussion was on last year one or two of us took what I think was the simple and common-sense line that Germany should be made to pay every penny she could, and that we should ascertain the fullest amount that she could pay, and then settle the bill when she has paid it. Those of us who took that line were told that we were lacking in loyalty and that we were pro-Germans, while the hon. and gallant Member who leads a party of two in this House went so far as to say that I might as well represent Würtemberg or Bavaria. You cannot keep track of the super-patriots on this question; but I am delighted that you are not going to get all these vast sums from Germany, and that one of the best results of the War has been that the world knows that each nation which takes part in war must pay its own bill. The days of plunder by war are over.
It is right for us to demand from Germany the fullest amount that we can get. I do not wish my position to be equivocal at all. If we can get £10,000,000,000 I should be delighted. In that event the
Budgets that we should listen to in future years would truly be sweet in our ears; the one that we listened to last week is very bitter to our taste. The absurd idea that it does not matter what is the position of Germany, and that you may remain in a state of veiled warfare until she has paid a sum which anyone can prove it is impossible for her to pay, is a notion which, judging from the Prime Minister's speech, is not in the mind of the Government. It is all very well saying that it never has been. We have been told that we were going to have 10,000,000,000 sterling, and that if it took ten years or 10,000 years, we should get it, and that there was to be no real settlement and no establishment of friendly relations until we do. That has been said by the super-patriots all over the country, who get a little cheap popularity by holding out great hopes that can never be redeemed. The fact is that we shall probably at no distant date have to provide funds for Germany to remain in any stable economic position, and it is folly for men to go up and down the country saying that vast sums of money are going to be got from Germany. I hope that one thing is a fixed determination in the mind of the Government, and that is, that we will determine the fullest amount that Ger-'many can pay, that we will arrange with her how she shall pay it, and that we will do all that we can so that the economic interests of Europe may proceed on more normal and happier lines.
Let me say a few words about America. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that in October 500,000,000 dollars lent to us by America were going to be repaid, there was naturally a very loud cheer. It is a very large sum for us to be repaying just now. It was a very large sum for America to loan to us at the time. It was the first external loan that she had ever made. It is most unfortunate that references such as some of those that have been made in this House should have been made in regard to America. We are repaying our loan, and are glad to be able to repay it. It should be accompanied with grateful thanks that she advanced it to us. Our fortunes were never lower and our needs were never greater than at that particular moment. She was a good friend to us. We must all feel that to do anything which tends to produce strained relations
between this country and America is a black crime.
I know that it is easy to criticise America's decisions with reference to certain matters. America has no representative at the Conference. It is her loss. Things are said and done over there in these days that add to our difficulties; but if Englishmen take the trouble to inquire, they will find that there is no need to pay any attention to anything that is said in the public press and on the platform in America between now and the 4th of November. If we were wise we would stuff cotton wool in our ears until after the Presidential election. For my part, I am grateful that our relations with America are as happy as they are, and I am one of those who will always wish to play a part which may in some degree contribute to a continuance of that policy, and I will always protest against and hold in disgust and contempt any attack made on this great friendly people, above all in this place.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: The remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon will be read with great regret by the large body of democratic opinion in this country, more especially his remarks concerning the Allied action in the Ruhr Valley. The impression one gets from his remarks concerning this question is that one cannot say he is opposed to the League of Nations, as many of his colleagues on the Front Bench are, who have often stated so, but they certainly do not lead us to hope that the League of Nations will soon become a reality in the organisation of the World Commonwealth. But what one does gather is that the Supreme Council's immediate task is to join together and to down democratic organisation, whether Communism, Bolshevism or whatever it is, in whatever part of the globe organised workers' movements happen to obtain control of the economic system.
The Prime Minister challenged us to inform him of any information which we have regarding the co-operation of British officials with the Baltic Forces which carried out the coup d'etat in Berlin last month. It is well known that the Forces under Von der Goltz were organised, equipped, drilled and collected in the Baltic States last year at Mitau and Libau. that those Forces were allowed to be drilled and collected in total contravention to the terms of the Peace Treaty to
a number exceeding 200,000, and that they were collected in the Baltic States under Von der Goltz, who was replaced by Colonel Bermondt. I happened to be in those States last year. It was common knowledge there that while the Allied Council had often ordered the demobilisation and disbandment of those Forces, no action had been taken to accelerate that demobilisation and disbandment. I was told on several occasions that secret orders had been issued by the Allied Council, or from Members of the Allied Council, ordering Von der Goltz and his successor, Colonel Bermondt, not to be too quick in the demobilisation of these troops. It was known among these troops that they were to be used for a coup d'état in Berlin or else for an attack on Bolshevik Russia, and those troops were speculating among themselves which attack would take place first.
If that knowledge were available to any common individual who happened to wander about the streets of those towns, and if it was known to the British Missions, it must have been known to the British Government in this country. It was reported by a general of distinction and skill, who was connected with the Military Mission in that country. He unfortunately reported in a way which was not very much in accord with the wishes of the Government. Therefore he is now on the retired list. I am told that he reported to the Secretary of State for War, but no action was taken. In fact, the Secretary of State for War flew over to Deauville, where the Prime Minister was recuperating on the sands, and suggested that there should be no disbandment as was recommended by the military advisers, but rather that an alliance should be made with these. German troops of Von der Goltz for a further attack against Bolshevism and Soviet Russia. I should be very glad to know that all these statements are unfounded, but when I took the opportunity of interjecting some remarks in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I spoke with personal knowledge of facts which I had gleaned myself. I withdraw none of these remarks in any degree whatever. Time will show.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

9.0 P.M.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Profiteering Act, which was passed in August of last year, expires on the 19th May. This Bill is designed to continue that Act in operation for another twelve months. There are also certain provisions for amending the previous Act in order to make its operations more efficacious. I had hoped that the Motion which I am now moving would be regarded as entirely non-controversial in character, but I learn from the notice Paper that there are at least three hon. Gentlemen who desire that the provisions of the Profiteering Act should now lapse, and that after the 19th May this year there shall no longer be any check whatever on profiteering.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman wants to misrepresent my action in putting down a Motion for rejection. I do not want the Profiteering Act to lapse or any checks withdrawn, but I want the whole thing strengthened.

Sir R. HORNE: I should gather that the strengthening of the Act would be done by Amendments of this Bill in Committee. The hon. Gentleman's Motion is:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while providing no sure means for the prevention of profiteering, encourages the formation of trusts and trade combines and the artificial stereotyping of high prices.
If he declines to give the Bill a Second Reading, then automatically the Profiteering Act will come to an end. I wish, accordingly, that the House should consider for a moment precisely what are the powers which exist in the Profiteering Act of 1919, and how we should be left if those powers disappeared. Under the Act the Board of Trade has power to schedule articles in common use, to conduct investigations into their manufacture, and to ascertain costs and prices and profits at all stages of that manufacture. It may also fix maximum prices for any of these articles in the schedule. It may, if it thinks that the profit taken on the manufacture of these articles is exorbitant or unreasonable, prosecute the person who
is exacting the profit. If complaints are made to it by any citizen that he has been charged an unreasonable price for one of the articles in the schedule it may institute an investigation, and, upon it being ascertained that the price is unreasonable, it may have the excess returned to the purchaser. Further, the Board of Trade may delegate all its powers to subsidiary tribunals, which may do everything that the Board of Trade can do, except fix maximum prices. Finally, it may investigate all cases of trusts or combinations or arrangements for carrying on trade having for either their purpose or effect the regulation of prices or output or distribution of the article manufactured.
The conditions under which we find ourselves to-day are not less easy to profiteer in than they were when the Act was passed. The shortage of commodities with which we were faced then is perhaps intensified now. Prices have gone even further than they had gone in August, 1919, and if anyone to-day desires to profiteer he has got just as adequate opportunities if not more than he had in August last. I could scarcely believe that my hon. and gallant Friend really desired to have all these powers taken away, for they are to-day the only check upon those who desire to profiteer at the expense of the public. We have at least this to guide us. No other country in the world has been able to devise a better plan than we have in existence in the Act. None has instituted more stringent regulations. None has conducted more efficacious investigations, and our experience is that other countries are copying, so far as their circumstances allow, the system we have laid down. It may be asked, what use have you been able to make of your Act? I would ask the House for a moment to consider that question. We have made the greatest possible use of the Act and it has performed very useful functions during the last few months.
I will take first the question of the investigation of costs and prices and profits. Under the Profiteering Act there was set up a Central Committee for the purpose of conducting such investigations. That Central Committee elected a large number of sub-committees, and between August and the present time there have been 296 meetings of committees and sub-committees, 104
commodities have been investigated or are now in course of investigation, and 16 reports embodying the result of many weeks' investigation and the examination of a great many witnesses have now been completed and sent to the Board of Trade. I need not elaborate those reports, because some of them have been made public. Not all of them are yet complete. Some have been sent back for further investigation, but one thing I think I am able now to claim without contradiction, and that is that these investigations have been of very great value to this country, in that they have done much to inform the public mind. With regard to all matters in which the mass of the people are moved by suspicion, publicity is always very valuable. I would go so far as to say that you cannot for long keep up charges which are essentially unfair and unjust if you have the light of day cast upon them by investigation through committees in which the public has confidence. I claim that in this respect the Act has performed a very great service.
Let me turn to another aspect of the work. I have stated that under the provisions of the Act the Board of Trade may set up local tribunals for the investigation of complaints. There have been set up under that scheme something like 1,800 Committees, which have been conducting investigations. Four thousand complaints have been heard. In 934 cases it was held that the charges made were unreasonable, and in over 200 cases prosecutions were conducted in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. It may be said that that represents a comparatively small result for the examination of complaints with regard to profiteering prices, but I beg the House not to believe that the whole efficacy of this work is shown by the number of prosecutions you have to conduct or the complaints you actually receive. You must recollect what the deterrent effect is of such legislation as this. It would be just as unfair to test the value of the work of those Committees by the number of prosecutions which have been conducted as a result of the inquiries as it would be to test the value of a policeman's, work by the number of criminals he succeeded in arresting, or to test the value of a Judge's work by the number of people he succeeded in having convicted. Accordingly we have got to look at the matter in a much wider aspect
than the mere result of prosecutions. From all the evidence I can get—and I have endeavoured to acquire all the information possible from those who have been conducting these Committees—I am assured in my own mind, and I venture to give this to the House, that the deterrent effect of this Act has been very great indeed, and that the menace of publicity and the threat of having transactions exposed in public before Committees, has had the very greatest possible effect in preventing a rise of prices in many cases where people would have been tempted to take the utmost advantage from the public. It is sometimes said—and I see this criticism from time to time—that, while something has been done affecting the small retailer, very little has been done really to tackle the case of the large manufacturers or trusts. I should like to examine that for a moment. I have referred already to the investigations that have been conducted in the case of these great combinations. Those have included combinations dealing in such commodities as chocolate, sewing cotton, electric lamps, petrol, building materials, tobacco, uniform clothing, dyes, iron and steel products, fish, soap, wallpaper, cocoa, meat, milk, oils and fats, and even that does not exhaust the whole list. We have not got to the end of the results of those inquiries. Certain reports have been given, but the majority of them are still in the form of interim reports, or have been sent back for further information. Therefore, we have not been in a position up till now really to take action upon any of those reports, even if the occasion for action were disclosed.
I should like also to say that one of the results of those investigations has been that it may be safely said in general that monopolies or combinations having a substantial control in this country have up till now not really abused their position. I think we are entitled to say that our country has been particularly free from the abuse of such monopoly power. It may be that there will be such abuses in the future, and I think that every country is bound to take means to guard against the possibility of such abuse. Accordingly, the Government has turned its attention to the type of legislation which would be required in order to deal with cases of monopolies and combinations having substantial control of any particular in-
dustry or any particular commodity required by the public. Such legislation would have been proposed at the present time, and a scheme has been thought out and prepared, which would have been incorporated in the present Bill but for the fact that we have got to get the present Bill through before the 19th May if we are to preserve the powers which we have under the Profiteering Act on the Statute Book. Accordingly legislation in a permanent form, not in the temporary form of this present Profiteering Act, dealing with trusts and combinations, must for the moment be postponed. I am sure that the House will readily understand that in the present condition of public business in this House there would have been a very poor chance of our being able to pass any such legislation in the course of this Session, considering the fact that the Irish Bill is going to be taken in Committee on the Floor of this House. But in the meantime we are not left without protection against such trusts if their power is abused, because we have still got the power which is temporarily given to us in the Profiteering Act. That power amounts to this, that wherever you find a trust or combination extracting unreasonable prices from the public on an article which is one of the scheduled articles in common use under the Statute, then that trust or combination may be prosecuted by the Board of Trade, and on conviction is liable to the penalties set forth in the Statute.
We have now come to the position in which an amendment of the Act of last year is necessary. In the first place, its renewal is necessary, and it is necessary also to amend it in certain particulars in order to make its operation more effective. What then do we ask the House to do in the present Bill? The first feature, and it is the substantially novel feature, of the Bill is the provision of Clause one, that where you have got an association of traders in any particular trade, or any collection of persons in any particular trade, who put up a scheme to the Board of Trade, setting forth arrangements by which the cost of the article which they produce may be tested at each point in the process of manufacture and the profit ascertained, if the Board of Trade, after investigation by its officers, is able to endorse that scheme and say that the profit is reasonable, then that should be
regarded as a profit which is not unreasonable, having regard to the provisions of the principal Act of last year. There are two reasons why this proposal, as it seems to us, is valuable. The first is, you can always do far better work if you co-operate with the people in the trade itself than if you are working against them. Secondly, unless you work with the people in the trade, the investigations you have got to make, and the regulations you may afterwards have to impose on the trade, will cost the country far more to operate than if you operated with the industry itself. Those are the two main reasons why we seek to have the powers given in Clause one. We have got a precedent for this. During the War the War Office was controlling the boot trade, and it embarked upon a system very like what is attempted in this Clause. It had the cost of the material and of the labour producing pairs of boots investigated at each stage of the manufacture, and it fixed a profit which was regarded as reasonable upon boots of certain prices. The prices were stamped upon the soles of the boots, and they came to be known as "standard boots," but it did not mean that there was only one variety. There was a great range of types in these boots, and in the course of the two years while the War Office was controlling this trade, between 1917 and 1919, they sold 25,000,000 pairs of these standard boots at a price which was much less than they could ordinarily have been obtained for in the market. After the Armistice, and after the War Office control ceased, the Federated Bootmakers of this country approached the Central Committee and offered to do voluntarily what previously they had done under the War Office. They had by this time ascertained that not merely the manufacturers and the retailers of boots would come into the scheme, but they had got also the goodwill and cooperation of the tanners, people who were engaged in selling the leather, and they came to the Committee with this scheme. The whole arrangements were worked out with the manufacturers, the operatives, the consumers, and the retailers, and for two months negotiations went on, and a scheme was arrived at. It provided for a testing at each stage of the manufacture from the leather upwards, a testing of the price, the cost, and the profit, and
it fixed the profit to the manufacturer at 5 per cent. All these costings were submitted to the Accountant of the Central Committee, who verified them from the books that were put before him. He had also available all the records which the Costings Department of the War Office had acquired during the two years while they were operating the scheme.
The very same objection was put up to that scheme which is set forth in the reasoned Amendment of my hon. Friends opposite to-night, but it was found to have absolutely no substance. There is no question of forming any ring whatever, there is no attempt to make a combination which will keep up prices. The attempt is to get an agreement amongst the traders in a particular trade to keep prices down, and it is all subjected to the supervision of the responsible officers of the Committee. The result was that when the Committee reported upon this scheme in connection with the boot trade, what they said was this:
 We find the scheme to be considered in the public interest and likely to be of benefit, not only in providing the public with standard boots of recognised quality and at reasonable prices, but also in stabilising the market as a whole.
What does that last phrase mean? It means this, that if you have got a commodity tested, known to be sold at a reasonable price, every other article in that range comes to be compared with the tested article, and that puts the public in a position to judge whether they are being charged a reasonable or an unreasonable price for the other article, and to make complaints accordingly if necessary. I should like the House to know that this Federated Bootmakers' Association have undertaken to give a third of their whole output to the production of these standard boots and shoes. They are now on the market and are being sold, and they would have been sold in very much larger quantities except for this, that the scheme was not prepared in time to allow of advantage being taken of the orders which are ordinarily given in the autumn of the year, but there is no doubt in the minds of anybody connected with the scheme that they will have a very good development of these orders in the course of the present year. Now that is the model which we have sought to follow in connection with what is proposed in Clause 1 of the present Bill, and I think I am not in error
when I say that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) had something to do with the boot scheme, and that he knows what its merits are and what its weaknesses are, if it has any; but we are convinced that it is a method by which we can more readily get for the public reliable goods at a reasonable price than by any system of prosecution.
The next novelty in connection with the present Bill is that it applies not merely to sales, but also to the hiring of articles. It has been found, in the course of the experience of the last few months, that many articles of necessary equipment in houses have been hired at unreasonable rates, and we wish to bring hiring within the scope of the Bill. The next point with which I wish to deal quite shortly is that it is to apply also to repairing and dyeing, cleaning and washing. That brings in the laundry trade, of which many complaints have been made in the past, and we hope that this Bill will be able to render service also in connection with these matters. There are some very minor Amendments to which I need only refer for a moment in passing. There is an Amendment providing that the rate of profit shall not be unreasonable if not greater than the average rate of net profit before the War. I seem to have a recollection that while the last Bill was before the Committee this question was raised, I think, upon an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who at that time argued for the Amendment which I am asking shall be made now in connection with this Bill. Secondly, there is a provision which we have found to be necessary in the working of the Statute, that a member of a co-operative society, unless he takes part in the management of the society, shall not be regarded as excluded from membership of a tribunal. The reason why we propose that is this. We found that in many parts of the country you were not in a position to man your committee unless you could take on members of co-operative societies, and I do not think there is any reason to believe that, where a man is an ordinary member of a co-operative society and takes no part in the management and acts in no way as an official of the society, he should be a partisan in any way, and so we make this proposal. We provide as an Amendment that investigations may be held by
an officer authorised by the Board of Trade in writing, because we found it very difficult with the ordinary staff to make the necessary investigations. We provide, in the last place, what, I think, is a necessary Amendment, in order to clear up a difficulty with which we have been faced several times, that the Board of Trade may publish the reports that it takes if it thinks it is in the public service that these reports, or parts of them, should be published. Generally, that covers everything that is in this Bill. The powers, as I have already said, in the old Act are very great powers and very stringent powers. Any criticisms which have been made of the Profiteering Act in the past as being of a trifling nature are entirely erroneous.
It may be said, if you like, that sufficient use has not been made of these powers. But I do not think that would be any reason, if it were true, for refusing a Second Reading to this Bill. Profiteering certainly, where it exists, ought to be dealt with and dealt with severely. The country has gone through the vicissitudes of the War with great courage, and our people have gone through part of the time of reconstruction with very wise patience, and it would be intolerable if any person were to have the opportunity to further burden our people by taking advantage of their necessities to extort an unreasonable profit for his own selfish end. But we ought to view this in proper perspective. In many cases people suspect profiteering where there is none. It has been said that the study of metaphysics is like looking in a dark room for a black hat which is not there. A certain number of those who have been trying to discover profiteering have been taking action of that character. People to a certain extent are deceived and misled by the inference that they draw when seeing the returns of very large profits in any particular business. They do not recollect that these profits are expressed in the terms of the same currency which they find inadequate to pay for the things they want. They also forget that every business man has to carry stock to-day which require three times as much to finance as they used to do. They forget that the business man has to spend, in order to get those profits, three or four times as much in providing for depreciation and charges of that kind. They forget that in the development of his trade
he requires an enormously increased capital, as compared with what was sufficient before the War. We have got to keep these things in mind when we look at these profits. We must not forget that a dividend of 10 per cent. is now actually only a little better than five per cent. before the War.
Every wage-earner is entitled to say when he is told that he is now getting a certain wage, "Yes, but looking to the worth of what I am getting it is not more than it was before the war." Exactly the same reply may be made, with truth, in the case of the man who is drawing the higher dividend. We must scrutinise these matters and keep these considerations in view. The real factor in high prices is not profiteering. It is the shortage of commodities, and that is a world-wide experience. I gave an illustration of this in what I said to the House about a month ago with regard to Cuban sugar. The price of sugar f.o.b. in Cuba before the War was 2¾ cents a pound. A month ago it had risen to 12 cents a pound. To-day it is 18 cents a pound. These are conditions which we can do nothing to alter. But there are other conditions which should go to modify our opinion when we look at these profits and these high prices. One of these conditions is the fact that America has given up drink and has taken to eating more sugar. There are, however, other elements over which we have more control. There is our credit. The raising of our credit is one of the most important questions that has to be dealt with if we are to bring about a reduction in prices. An increase of our credit and efforts to deal with the depreciation of our currency are things that we can do, and incidentally the Budget which has been recently introduced is a very important factor in the problem. If we tax our people in order to pay off our debt we shall do one of the biggest services that we can do to the country in the way of reducing prices.
Taxation has this first result at the present time, that it will lessen the inflated purchasing power of the people generally. It will reduce consumption and bring the supply of commodities more near to the demand. In addition to that, the effect of this attempt to pay off the debt will increase our credit and cheapen
everything that we import. And accordingly the elements that we most require are the decrease of consumption, the increase of production, and the reduction of our debt. If we take these large factors into account, the element of profiteering really assumes a comparatively minor importance. I remember a story which was once related of a village fool who put his hand across one of the springs which make up the River Thames so as to stop the supply to a rivulet, and then remarked, "I wonder what the people in London will say." Anyone who imagined that by stopping profiteering he was going to stop the flow of the great subterranean channels which create the tide of high prices on which we are swept along to-day would be just as great a fool as the person mentioned in the story. Profiteering is undoubtedly an element in the increase of prices, and is perhaps the most irritating among them, because it is unfair and unjust. I recommend the Second Reading of this Bill to the House, because I believe that it supplies the best and most practical means which you can find for coping with this evil without creating greater troubles than those which you seek to avoid. The Bill enforces the lesson that to seek undue profits at the present time is the greatest possible offence against the community. I believe that this Bill and the Act from which it has sprung give us a most valuable means of discovering and dealing with the evil.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, tell us what is to be done in cases of victimisation.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, that is the case in which a person making a complaint fears that he may be punished by the wholesaler refusing to supply him with goods. In such a case he would be able to bring his complaint. We think we should provide that there should be no opportunity for that kind of thing being done without there being a remedy.

Mr. HOLMES: The mere fact that this Bill has been introduced is evidence that the Bill which was introduced last year was ill-thought-out, and, as it finally passed through the House, was undigested legislation. The House appointed, in the middle of July, a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of profiteering. That Committee met, and held
one public sitting, when the witness who occupied the chair the whole sitting was the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), who was then Food Controller. On the following morning the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir Auckland Geddes, appeared before the Committee and announced that there was no necessity for the Committee to do any further work, as the Government proposed to introduce a Bill. Accordingly, seven or eight days later, that Bill was introduced, and even then evidence that that Bill was quickly thought out was forthcoming, because Sir Auckland Geddes went before the Select Committee and outlined the Bill to the Committee and when the Bill was in draft it was something quite different. After the Second Reading, the House was asked to take the Committee stage, and, starting at a quarter to four on 13th August, the Committee stage was finished about 6 o'clock the next morning. Then the following afternoon we started on the Report stage, and the Third Reading was through by 7 or 8 o'clock at night. It was obvious that, although Members of the House endeavoured to improve the Bill as it went through, rushing the thing in that way could not provide a satisfactory Act. The President has been good enough to refer to one Amendment which I moved, which was refused, and which is now part of the Amending Bill, and there are other Amendments which he is proposing which were also proposed by other hon. Members last year.
The people of the country generally feel that the Profiteering Act has been of no real effect. They regard it as having been one merely for the sake of harrying and harassing small shopkeepers, who have been brought up before tribunals all over the country, and have been made to return 1½d., 2d. and 4d. Beyond that, nothing has been done. The President said that there had been a large number of investigations, and that those investigations have informed the public mind. That may be very true. He was doubtless correct in saying that there is often supposed to be profiteering when such a thing does not exist, and to the extent the investigations may have done good; but these investigations have not brought down prices. The object of the Bill was to check profiteering, and there is no evidence that those investigations have, in fact, done so. The shopkeeper, as I say,
has been fined these small amounts, but what has been discovered by these tribunals has been that where the shopkeeper profiteered, he has merely done so in pennies and sixpences, and the man everyone has desired to get at is the man who has profiteered in thousands. The manufacturer, the speculator, the wholesaler—it does not matter in what article he is dealing, the big man has not been touched, and has not been affected in any way by the Act passed last year.
This new Bill is a Bill further to check profiteering, and is a further attempt to reduce prices. The President has very truly said that there are many contributory causes of high prices, and that profiteering is merely one of them, and he referred a moment ago to the large profits which many industrial undertakings were making at the present time. He accounted for them in various ways, but there was one reason he might have given he did not give, which we ought to take into account, and that is that a considerable amount of profit is being made by various firms in this country at the present time, owing to the high profits they are getting on exports. To that there is no objection. We want to sell abroad at the best prices we can possibly get, but, at the same time, we want to sell at reasonable prices at home, and that, to my mind, is the whole difficulty of stopping profiteering so far as manufacturers are concerned. That is why I, for one, welcome Clause 1 of the new Bill. The ideal to arrive at is to allow every manufacturer, distributor, or exporter of goods to obtain the highest prices from abroad and to have merely a reasonable profit for goods he sells at home; but there is only one article, so far as I know, with which we are doing that at the present time, and that is coal.

Mr. SWAN: Not the consumers at home.

Mr. HOLMES: I do not think that is at all pertinent to what I am saying. With regard to coal, we have got an elaborate Coal Control Department, which fixes certain prices for coal in this country, and allows a certain amount of coal to be exported at any price that can be obtained. I do not believe any Member of the House would be willing that every industry should have a Control Department set up for the purpose of arranging prices that should be
charged at home and abroad. It is too absurd to contemplate for a moment. It would mean a new hoard of Government officials, and large Government Departments which would be rejected, I think, unanimously by this House. The only thing, therefore, to do, if we are to obtain something of that kind, if we are to get the prices at home down to a reasonable level, giving merely a reasonable profit through all stages of manufacture and distribution, while allowing the manufacturer to sell at any price he likes abroad, is to get every trade itself to settle its own affairs.
That is the only alternative to Government control, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee stage will go a little further than Clause 1. Clause 1 enables him, if any association of persons comes forward with a scheme, to investigate that scheme and to allow them to pass outside the Profiteering Act. But he has no power under the Bill, as it stands, to call upon any trade or persons dealing in any class of article to prepare a scheme and bring it to him for approval, so that the only schemes he is going to get are those put together by a voluntary association of persons. The difficulty is that if he calls upon an association to do so, and they fail, it is difficult to find any penalty; but I venture to think that, with the general wisdom of his advisers, he might be able to see a way to put some penalty upon any trade that refuses to do so. After all, the Board of Trade have not so far got at the big profiteer. They have not got at the manufacturer; they have not touched the speculator or the wholesaler. The only way to do it is to get each trade to look after its own affairs on the principle that the old poacher makes the best gamekeeper. While I have no intention of voting against the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider further whether he can extend Clause 1 so that in the wholesale or manufacturing section of any trade in which he thinks profiteering occurs, he can call upon the trade to prepare a scheme, and to exact a penalty, if on unreasonable grounds, they fail to do so.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: My hon. Friend has directed our attention to the circumstances which attended the introduction of the original Bill. I think it is no secret with many hon. Members
of this House that when the proposals of the Profiteering Bill first came before the House I had my own opinion on the subject; but, as my hon. Friend has said, I was instructed to attend before the Committee of which he was a distinguished member in order to give evidence as to State policy on behalf of the Government. Certainly it is not for me to say anything as to the appearance in the course of a day or two of an entirely new policy, which argument the hon. Member was perfectly entitled to use, when he said that the policy gave the apparance of not having been very well thought out. But my objection at the time was this: I was and am as strongly opposed as anybody as to what is popularly understood as profiteering, but I felt that every section of the community was entitled to know what the Government understood by "profiteering". For, after all, it might very well be that perfectly honest persons might urge that, unless they were informed as to what was the interpretation of profiteering entertained by the Government, they would be in a quandary. Moreover, I felt at that time that, apart from the operations of the Ministry of Food, we were not in possession of sufficient data to administer a Bill of this character. I think that such shortcomings as are complained of in this discussion are attributable to the fact that we had not this data at our disposal, and were not able to make that rapid approach to the problem that is contemplated in the introduction of a Bill.
Nevertheless, I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the Profiteering Act has had a deterrent effect I have always been fearful that profiteering would be placed out of its proper perspective. I have felt that there was just a danger that we should divert the whole of popular opinion and attention against individuals rather than against the primary causes of high prices. There was a real danger there. We know how easy it is in these times to inflame opinion against traders and others. I was very much afraid that this original Act might have the effect of turning attention away from the fundamental fact that these high prices are due to world shortage. It is quite true that there is the contributory cause of profiteering. It is the desire of the Government, through legislation of this character, to eliminate
that which was correctly described by my right hon. Friend as an irritant rather than as a contributor to high prices. I think that so far as the Act has gone it has had an effect of steadying public opinion. On the other hand, of course, the Act has caused a great deal of disappointment.
It is quite true that many small shopkeepers have been proceeded against, but we still have to find out whether much progress is being made in dealing with the larger exploiters to whom my hon. Friend alluded. I know the difficulties of the case. I know it was often charged when I was at the Ministry of Food that we allowed profiteering to go on. We had various interests before us. We questioned them and honestly sought to ascertain what there was in any charge. When one views the effect of this procedure I think it was the best possible on any of those engaged in this iniquitous profiteering. Still, we have had some experience of the measure now, and I am going to confess that I think that, taking it as a whole, it is deserving of extension in the form of this Bill. At the same time we do not desire that the public should be misled into thinking that the mere enactment of a Bill of this character is going substantially to lower prices. After all, until we are able to increase supplies in our own country and encourage an increase of production in every other country in the world, we will never get away from the present-day phenomena of high prices, which, I am free to repeat, is in the main due to a world scarcity. At the Ministry of Food we had a good deal of experience in dealing with traders. I think that my right hon. Friend himself must very largely have been influenced by that in Clause 1 by the operations of the Ministry of Food. I there found a difficulty of carying on a large business through a State department. We were never sufficiently elastic. We never were able to adapt ourselves rapidly to changing markets. My hon. Friends, I observe, have put down amendments protesting against the proposal of Clause 1 as tending artificially to stereotype high prices. I have to tell them that my experience at the Ministry of Food was that our operations, whilst we desired otherwise, tended just to this effect: that it did stereotype high prices. After all, when you are fixing the prices for any par-
ticular commodity you have to fix them with due regard to the cost of production and reasonable profits for the average producer. That means that the mere efficient producer is safeguarded by your very schedule of prices, where, under agreed competitive conditions, there would be an anxiety to get out those who were less able to produce. It tends thereby to stereotype artificial prices because the prices are adjusted to the least efficient producer in the community. I thought that my hon. Friend would like to know what my experience at the Board of Trade suggested it just had the effect which my hon. Friend is apprehensive of in Clause 1.
We cast about for a more elastic elastic method of administration. I gave a good deal of consideration to the problem, and resorted very largely to this method—arrangement with trade organisations. I appreciated the fact that we would lay ourselves open to the charge of encouraging trusts and combines. That was not our experience. I have often myself undertaken to go about different parts of the country inviting traders to enter into this organisation, and we were able to put our Costings Department on and to ascertain the cost, and thereby able, so far as I can judge, to exercise effective control over these trades. It is owing to the operations of that method that prices are being kept down in respect of certain essential commodities. I am certain it is this form of trade organisation which has kept down the price of margarine, although margarine appears to have a free market to-day, I am quite certain that but for this arrangement with the manufacturers in various trades prices would have been much larger. In fact, they are lower than they would have been under a rigid system of control under the Ministry of Food. So it is in respect of other commodities. I remember one problem which confronted me throughout the whole of my occupancy of the position of Minister of Food, and that was dealing with prices in respect of perishable commodities. Many questions were put to me respecting the price of fish, and it was often shown that there was a great disparity between the price of fish at the ports and in the retail shops in various parts of the country. We had to fix a schedule of prices which was fair and which realised a reasonable profit to the various parties in the trade, but when
periods of glut arrived the small shopkeeper, or the shopkeepers in general, refused to handle their supplies of fish because, under the schedule of the Ministry of Food, they were assured their profit on a particularly small turnover. This was one of the factors with which we were constantly faced.
I remember that one of the last things I did before I left the Ministry of Food was to endeavour to get all sections of the fish trade together, from the owners of the fleets to the wholesalers in the markets and the retailers, including the men who were engaged in the various operations, in an endeavour to get them to come to an understanding whereby it would be possible to ensure that during periods of small catches all concerned would be assured of a reasonable profit, and during periods of large catches it would be possible to direct those supplies to the various channels of distribution so as to allow the consuming public to get the full benefit of large supplies. This can best be done by some such method as that which is set forth in Clause I of this Bill. I wish to say to those hon. Members who propose to submit an Amendment that the experience of the Ministry of Food is worth consideration in this matter. I am at one with them in their anxiety to protect the general public against the manipulations of trusts and combines, but I think that under the supervision of the Board of Trade, as we conducted it at the Ministry of Food, this policy gives full freedom to the consumer, and therefore the apprehension which has prompted this Amendment has not a very substantial foundation.
It appears to me that the real fundamental of all this problem is the necessity for an efficient Costings Department in the State. This has been an ambition of mine during the whole of my public career. In the various administrations I have been engaged in, it was a point which I constantly kept in view. We have a fairly efficient Department of this kind at the Ministry of Food, but what I think is more desirable is a Central Costings Department which would be able to investigate the cost of production and the rates of profits, not only in respect of articles of food, but other commodities which enter into our daily life. I know there are others who desire to speak, but
I thought that the experience I had derived might be of interest, and whilst I do not expect, or at least hope, that the public will look to the Profiteering Act or any Amendment of that Act to lower prices, I hope they will recognise that it is but one factor, and not the primary factor, but the real cause is world shortage. Nevertheless, I am prepared to associate myself with anyone and everybody to eliminate what appears to me to be a criminal in our midst when we are able to describe and deal with him.

Mr. A. SHORT: I think the House is indebted to my right hon. Friend for the very lucid way in which he has introduced this amending Bill, and brought to the notice of the House as well as he could the material advantages accruing from the operations of the principal Act. I think, when one recalls the prospects held out to us by Sir Auckland Geddes when he introduced the principal Act, and foreshadowed the material advantages which were expected to accrue from its operations, I think, judging from our experience to-day, we are driven to the conclusion that the Bill has generally failed to cope with some of the worst evils arising from the peculiar and abnormal conditions associated with our everyday social life. Despite the operations of the Act, I think there is a larger measure of discontent abroad, and there is a growing feeling that, in spite of all that may be said with regard to a world shortage and factors of that kind, as a result of high prices and an increase in the cost of living, the people are being swindled and robbed in consequence of the nefarious practices of the profiteer as an individual or as a result of the practices of trusts and combines.
The present Minister of Food likened the profiteer to a most irritating small insect on the human body, but he did not tell us what usually happened to that insect. There is only one policy, and that is to exterminate the insect, and destroy it entirely. Despite all the investigations and reports and all the great powers of the principal Act, the fact that the Government has failed even to use those powers effectively and wisely has led to this insect finding fertile ground on which it could procreate its species. I do not suggest that high prices are entirely due to profiteering. I do not think that position could be defended in its entirety. I am not unmindful of the
state of Europe. I remember that Europe has been the cock-pit of the conflict of military forces, and that great nations, once powerful and strong, and supplying to some extent the requisite needs of the world and civilisation, have become physically exhausted, and shall I say, the will to restore their economic life of usefulness has become impaired.
These, however, are only contributing factors to high prices. I might reasonably ask whether the Government itself, in connection with its own trading, has not contributed to high prices. I might also ask whether it is not true that the policy of decontrol adopted by the Ministry of Food has also led to high prices and an increase in the cost of living. My right hon. Friend who recently occupied the office of Minister of Food referred to the cutting out of competition. Owing to the exceptional circumstances of the world shortage and the operations of trusts and combines, we find that competition has been largely eliminated. I would like to remind the House of what the present Minister of Food said when the original Bill was introduced. He said:
Prices are no longer fixed by the operation of the law of supply and demand or by the anxiety of rival traders to see who can sell the cheapest, but they are fixed by a combination of traders deciding who can sell in the dearest market.
It is because of the operations of these trusts and combines, and the failure of the House to deal adequately and effectively with them, that we have seen a greater increase in the cost of living and of commodities than we should have done had action of a suitable character been taken. Quite recently I called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, to a case in which the London County Council sought quotations for a quantity of cast iron piping in connection with the erection of a pumping station at Woolwich. When the quotations came to hand they were found to be from four firms in different parts of the country with works situated in different towns and cities, and they were for exactly the same amount of money in every case. I do not suggest that in this particular transaction the prices were excessive, or that there was anything in the nature of profiteering; but I do suggest that the different contractors had put their heads together and formed a ring or combine to regulate the supply and fix prices, and had thereby
eliminated any benefits which might be derived from the policy of competition advocated and enunciated by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Roberts). When the original Bill was introduced, Sir Auckland Geddes quoted the case of some cottage property for which an estimate had been received equal to the sum of £3,500, but when the whole matter was investigated by experts it was found that the work could be done at a reasonable and just profit for £2,500.
I want to ask whether in the course of the operations under the principal Act the Government have broken the rings or combines which control and regulate the supply and fix the prices of building materials, which are after all a mighty factor in these days in connection with our housing problem. We were told by Sir Auckland Geddes that these were the sort of things we know about and the sort of things we ought to take steps to prevent. In view of all our experience, however, these things have not been stopped. I admit that there are difficulties in the way, but it should be with the possibilities of a capable Government to overcome such difficulties. I would like to see a limit put upon the profits of trusts—not merely on articles manufactured, but on the profits of trusts in the same sense as we put a limit on the dividends of gas companies and companies of that kind. Further, I would like to see some action taken to prevent gambling and speculation in ships. When I read of ships that a few years ago cost £35,000 being sold for £200,000 or £225,000 I ask myself if such speculations are not serious contrubuting factors to the high cost of living. Action should be taken to prevent this sort of thing in these days, in view of the sacrifices made by the people of this country. The same argument applies to the abnormal transactions that have taken place in connection with the cotton and similar industries. I should like to see further powers given in this amending Bill. I welcome the proposals embodied in the first Clause, although I share the opinion of the Member for North-East Derbyshire regarding the necessity for drastic Amendments in the direction he indicated, but I should like to see in this amending Bill still greater powers given to the local tribunals, as it would be an encouragement for them to take more action. Reference has been made to the
representation of co-operative societies on the tribunals. I am not quite clear that I understood accurately what was stated with regard to representation on these tribunals. I understand that traders are entitled to be represented, and, if so, I should like to know why an official or manager of a co-operative society is to be excluded. Perhaps my right hon. Friend who introduced this Bill will give me further information on this point. Speaking on behalf of the Labour party, I have to say we shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but we are not satisfied that it goes far enough or that it will give us the results which we are entitled to look for, and we shall therefore seek, in the Committee stage, to bring forward Amendments which we think will strengthen and make better the provisions incorporated in it.

10.0 P.M.

Sir ERNEST WILD: The speech of the President of the Board of Trade took me back to that long August night when we spent 14 hours endeavouring to discuss 250 Amendments to the Recess manifesto introduced in order to apease the " Daily Mail." We were told then it was a temporary measure to be given a six months' trial. Then it was extended for another six months, and now I am alarmed to find the Government propose to extend it to the 19th May, 1921. I should be very sorry to accept the description of himself given by the President of the Board of Trade as a village fool, but I think that Bill was a piece of rural folly, and I ventured to say, in common with those who opposed it, that it was an iniquitous piece of legislation which was brought in in order to satisfy popular clamour. I also venture to think that the experience of the operation of the Bill has shown that that prophecy was true. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who said, with regard to any effort that might be made by this or any other Government to get at the real profiteers, that if you could get at the trusts and combines, if you could get at the people who may or may no be making undue profits—I am not making any allegations which I cannot prove—if you could get at them, the Government would be doing something good. But unfortunately the Government has said that, owing to lack of time, this very necessary
legislation must be deferred to a more convenient season, and I suppose, as has been said by a former Prime Minister, that will be another debt of honour that will brook a little delay. We have in the present Act which we are asked to prolong power given to the Central Committee to deal with those evils and to investigate them. I understand that the Central Committee, upon which there are many trade union representatives, has been doing very good work, and has been collecting a vast amount of information. I think it a great pity that the time of the House is. not to be occupied in trying to deal with the real evil, instead of trying to stop this leak in the river Thames, as the Board of Trade metaphorically put it. What I object to in this legislation is, first of all, that it ranks every retailer in the country as a potential criminal. That is not a form of rhetoric; it is a fact. Every retailer, big or small, may be made, at all events, into an accused person by any customer, however unimportant, and that is going on all over the country. Then the retailer is brought before a Committee, generally by a lady, who has not all the information that the President of the Board of Trade enumerated in his peroration. I thought he was rather like the converse of Balaam: he was sent to bless-his Bill, but he finished by cursing it, because in his peroration he told us, as a man of business and affairs should, the things that the public forget. He mentioned the price of stock, the value of repairs and what they cost, and the money that is necessary to pay a reasonable dividend. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Short) said that he had regard to the state of Europe. The lady who thinks she is paying too much for her stockings or her gloves does not care a straw for the state of Europe. She does not think of any of these matters, but goes and makes a complaint.
As I prophesied to the House when speaking on the last Bill, I have had a great number of cases under this Act, and they have not all been unsuccessful. This is what happens. The lady takes a pair of stockings that she bought from A, goes and gets another similar pair from B, and another from C, and she says that the one cost so much, the other so much less, and the third so much less. She puts that before the local committee,
and they say: "Here is primâ facie evidence," and they summon the tradesman before them. The tradesman goes, and he may think it wise to instruct a solicitor or brief counsel. The House may ask, why should he go to that expense? The tradesman is spending a good deal of money on advertisement, and it is a very bad advertisement to go before a local tribunal at all, and a still worse advertisement to be told to return 2½d. or 5s. 6d., or whatever it may be. I was engaged in the very first case that came before the City Tribunal, and it was against one of the biggest firms in the City. The article was a pair of gloves or something of that sort, and the customer had sent the matter to the Committee, and they summoned the firm before them. These people did not want to have a bad advertisement, or to have it said that they were profiteering, so they instructed solicitors and briefed counsel, and we went, at a cost to them of a good deal of money. It also cost them what was more than money; it cost them time. They had to bring their buyer, their forewoman, their traveller, and one or two experts in the trade, to show that the price was not unreasonable. They came there, but the complainant did not; she did not turn up. I was told, "You can have this case dismissed if you like." I said, "Oh, no; we are not going to have the case dismissed; we desire to put the facts and figures before you," and we did. The next case was of a similar kind, but in that case the figure did look large; it may have been 12s. 6d. for a pair of gloves, or something of that sort, and of course the customer said it was more than she was accustomed to pay and more than she thought she ought to pay. We went into the figures in the books, again at great expense, and, when the customer saw how small the profit really was, she was the first to apologise. That, however, did not make up to the tradesman for the indignity, inconvenience and annoyance that he had to go through.
I remember one case where people had gone to buy grease paint and the price seemed high. They went to two other shops and got them at less than half the price. They came along and said: This is profiteering. But it happened that this was old stock and we were selling the old stock at a price which was only a reasonable profit on what we gave for it, whereas the other people were buying in a cheaper market because prices had
gone down. These things are put by this village fool legislation upon the unfortunate shopkeeper. I entirely refute the phrase used by the President of the Board of Trade. They are not tried by Committees in whom the public have confidence at all. They are tried generally by a parcel of supercilious amateurs. There are very rarely tradesmen on the tribunal at all, and you have nice respectable people who know nothing about trade and they are going peddling about in people's books, putting them to this indignity, and the consequence is that shopkeepers are very much annoyed at the way in which they have been treated by Parliament. If they win they have no redress. They cannot get any costs or any remedy whatever. The offence is a nebulous one. It is not defined at all. This Act, which we are continuing for another year, says: "If you charge a price which is unreasonable in all the circumstances." That means a price which the particular tribunal thinks to be unreasonable. For these reasons I objected to the original legislation and I object still. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's summary of the operations of the Act. He says since it has been law, which is a matter now, I suppose, of some 10 months, there has been 4,000 complaints, and in 934 cases money has had to be returned. When we remember that the money which has had to be returned has very often been only so many farthings it does not show that the Act has been very fruitful in effect. I listened in vain for an admission on his part which was quite nobly made by my hon. Friend the new Food Controller. Speaking to the retailers of London he said the net result of the Profiteering Act has been to show that substantially amongst retailers there has been no profiteering at all. The responsible Minister said, "There may not have been convictions, but think of the deterrent effect." It would have been much better if he had said, as the Food Controller said last year, the result is that qua the retailer the thing has been practically a dead letter.
With regard to the new Bill I recognise that there in an improvement in Clause 1, because it will assist in stabilising the offence. If the trade put their heads together and fix upon a figure which the Board of Trade accepts, the consumer cannot find that goods sold at that
price are sold in excess of the proper price. The President said you can do far better work if you co-operate with the people than if you work against them. It is certain that retailers of the country would willingly respond to that offer if it had to be made. But Clause 8 I do not like at all. It introduces the jargon of the trade unions. It begins with a word which is not English at all—" profiteering "—and then talks about "victimisation," which is as bad English. It does not merely mean that the retailer is to have resources against the wholesaler. Supposing a customer has made a frivolous complaint. The customer need not even buy. He need only offer to buy. The customer may put the tradesman to any amount of annoyance, indignity, and bother in bringing him before tribunals, and putting him to expense. Supposing the tradesman says, "I do not want to have anything more to do with you." Then, if I read the Clause aright, the customer is entitled to take the tradesman before a magistrate. I think the customer has a redress against the retailer, just as the retailer has against the wholesaler. The complainant may be the customer, and the complainant under the Act generally is the customer. Therefore, if the complainant's action is frivolous and vexatious and the tradesman says, "I will not have anything more to do with you," the result seems to be that the tradesman is taken before the magistrate and is subject to penalties for:
"Failure to comply with an order,"
assuming that he has been
in the habit of selling articles of the class in question to the complainant 
before the Act was passed. He is liable to a fine of £50, or to imprisonment for three months, or both. That is the sort of light and airy way in which we are treating the retailers. What you really want to do, if you insist upon this legislation at all—and if this Bill goes to Second Beading I shall vote against it if anyone will go in the Lobby with me—is to stabilise the offence. It is an offence, and it is a thing for which you can bring a man before a local committee, and, if the committee is satisfied, you can bring that man before the magistrate, and he may get three months for the first offence. It is altogether wrong to deal with the matter on the basis of an article. You
cannot judge a man's business by a specific article. Everybody who knows anything about trade knows that you may have had certain goods in stock for years, and perhaps it is a line which is going out of fashion. You have your swings and your roundabouts in trade, and you may have to sell that particular part of the stock at a loss. On the rest of your stock are you not entitled, as everybody else is entitled, to make up on your roundabouts what you lose on your swings?

Mr. BILLING: You are not entitled to make up your mistakes at the expense of others.

Sir E. WILD: I should be sorry to make up at the expense of my hon. Friend. The next point is the question of replacement of value. This goes to the root of the matter, and the tribunal ought to take into consideration the replacement of the value of the article. That ought to be embodied in the Bill. It ought to be laid down that the tribunal, in judging what a proper profit is to be, should be told whether they are to reckon it upon cost or upon returns. Then there ought to be a reasonable standard of profits fixed. Here is a case which is symbolic of the whole operation of the Act. It is a case which I took from the "Drapers' Record" on the 17th April this year. It says that at Aylesbury a police officer complained of a charge of 8¾d. for a pair of ladies' cotton shoe laces bought from a certain draper. They did in that case what they always do, went to two other drapers and bought laces from one at 4d. and from the other at 6½d. When they looked into the question of profits they found that a comparison with articles bought in other shops was useless unless all shops bought the same article at the same time. The rival tradesman who was selling laces at 4d. had bought the laces so long ago that he could not remember when he bought them. It says that on 17th December Egyptian cotton was 50d. and on 17th February it was 99d., and after all the investigations it was found that the nett profit was 1/16d. which the tradesman did not have to return.
It is very funny, but it is persecution of the tradesman, and it is simply an illustration of what takes place. The retailer is being persecuted because very often he belongs to the middle class and he has no trade union to protect him. If he had, he could take advantage of
people's necessities and he would not be persecuted in this way. The public is not protected. Perhaps the House does not realise how this Act has put up prices, because it does not matter a straw to the retailer what he gives for the goods. It pays him better to pay a good price than a small price. Suppose he pays £1 and he charges 30s. to the customer, that pays him better than paying 10s. and charging 15s. to the customer. It does not matter what he pays, because he can put it on to the customer and he can charge a bigger price to the customer when he pays a large sum to the wholesaler.

Mr. BILLING: What about competition?

Sir E. WILD: I do not know what my hon. Friend means, and I do not think that he does himself.

Mr. BILLING: There is no competition in the law.

Sir E. WILD: My hon. Friend perhaps has some experience of the law.

Mr. BILLING: Hear, hear!

Sir E. WILD: I am very glad to say that my profession does not play the game as my hon. Friend played it. But his remark that there is no competition in the law seems to show his ignorance of the law. There is competition in the law, as there should be in everything. All that I am asking the House to do is to consider carefully before reading this Bill a Second time. I still think that it is unjust to the vast body of retailers in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: The outstanding feature in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Home) was the stress which he laid on Clause 1. I think that his persuasive, sympathetic manner in inviting co-operation on the part of the trader will do very much to spread among traders, anyhow in the larger industries which are at present being subject to the Clauses of this Bill, a greater inclination to co-operate on those lines than is being stimulated at present as a result of the action taken by the various committees sitting under the Act and investigating different trades throughout the country. I think there is need of a clear perspective as to what is aimed at under the
original Act. In many trades there is proceeding now an investigation which seems to be actuated less by the prospect of accomplishing anything substantial than by an attempt to extract information about that trade to the satisfaction of certain individuals sitting on the Committee. I am not objecting to the principles underlying the Act, because it is obvious that, with the present temper in the country, something is unquestionably needed either to limit profits or to give some satisfaction to the sense of irritation which exists. But, with regard to particular trades, I make a plea for a clear perspective. To deal with one article in particular is not effective and rational. When you have raw material passing through different stages of an industry, each one highly specialised and highly organised, to attack any particular section of that industry for excess profits is a pure waste of time. It means that a great deal of expense is incurred and an incredible amount of irritation introduced with no effective result. It cannot have any result; it is impossible that you can assist the consumer one fraction. If an investigation which has no object is persisted in, it becomes an inquisition. In trades where you have different sections so constituted, there is a further element of difficulty introduced. Of their total output perhaps a small portion is used in this country and the larger portion is exported. Surely if they are making unreasonable profits, a large part of it is going; to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That portion of their output which does ultimately go into something consumed in this country, is entirely out of their power, and the ultimate price to the consumer is not in any way affected. They may get the materials in a semi-manufactured state from another section of the trade which is highly specialised, and it may go in turn to another branch of the trade which is also highly specialised, and so on. Many manufacturers have to spend days and days wrestling with the questionnaires presented to them by the various Committees and is this a moment to fritter away time of large employers and producers of commodities which are largely exported, and who are helping the exchange enormously and providing taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will welcome? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Clause as to the net profits obtained under pre-War conditions but
what exactly was the relationship between pre-War profit and present profit? Take the textile trade, and you will find that the machinery costs about three times pre-War price, and the mill from one and a half to twice as much. Surely you have there a substantial difference in estimating the basis of profit. Another Clause deals with the publication of information which is obtained, but is it realised what effect that may have, and is likely to have, on our export trade in foreign? countries? Some of the reports, such as that on the electric lamps, are far too loosely constructed. Following the publication of reports making allegations of excessive profits, I have seen letters from foreign countries saying, "We do not want to do any more business with you, as were are not going to contribute towards the extravagant and tremendous profits disclosed by the Report of the Government Committee." How are we going to make profits from foreign trade if that goes on? Take the great textile trades of the Continent of Europe, where their mills are intact, their machinery is practically ready to run, and the employers themselves are wishing to employ the workpeople and let the mills run; yet what is the picture? You see gaunt workpeople stalking through the streets of those cities, out of employment, and the population in those countries worse than in rags and almost without clothing. Why? Because of the misfortune of the delay of concerted action by the Allies in arriving at some system whereby you can get some semi-manufactured materials on a long credit basis to employ those people, who are perishing from cold because they have not got coal. How are you going to remedy that unless you encourage exports from those countries where the machinery is functioning. So I put in that plea for trades which, acting upon the request of the Government, have deliberately taken their courage in both hands and sold to those countries on long term credits, willing to risk their all, and which are being subjected to inquisition at the present moment because they have ventured to make substantial profits, on which, too, they are paying Excess Profits Duty to the Government. They are not real profits; they are profits held in trust by men who have acted with -that courage which has traditionally
built up our trade. It is only individual traders who will do it, and because they are doing it these traders are being persecuted with a persistent questionnaire and investigations by all sorts of committees, their time being frittered away, and nothing being accomplished. We want to get all the profit we can from our foreign trade, or how shall we provide the money to meet the housing and other schemes which want putting into effect? I think, therefore, it is right to draw attention to the risk there is of losing the sense of respect with regard to some of the investigations that are now being made.
I had the pleasure of being present at a conference the other day, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and I regretted that the earnestness with which he put forward his views could not reach a far wider audience. If his persuasive words could reach more people, there would be a greater readiness on the part of employers to fall in with the appeal which he has made to-day, that trades will themselves volunteer to come forward with a scheme, which, if put forward successfully, may enable him to see that trade does not unreasonably exploit the public. There is this one difficulty. How is it possible for certain sections of a trade, proceeding individually, to meet the charge being made against them unless other sections of the trade with whom they have no connections themselves fall into line?Unless they do, it is a little difficult for individuals in sectional trades readily to avoid feeling a sense of grievance, and I put in this plea, that information and work done under a sense of injustice never brings forth good results.

Mr. WALLACE: We all desire to prevent profiteering, but there is no necessary connection between high prices as they exist to-day and profiteering. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has told us in one of those many illuminating pamphlets that high prices exist, first of all, because of the wastage of War and, secondly, on account of the inflation of currency and lack of increased production. I only wish that pamphlet which he wrote on this particular subject was scattered broadcast throughout the country, because I feel that there would be much less dissatisfaction on the question of prices if the real facts as he has published them
were made known. I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade has admitted here to-night that profiteering has played only a very small and minor part in the present high prices. I want to say a word about the administration of the Profiteering Act which we passed about a year ago in the early hours of a very weary morning. I do not know whether it was on account of the jaded condition of the House, but my complaint is not that the Profiteering Act does not go far enough, but that in some respects it goes too far. I do not at all object to the strengthening of it, as outlined by my right hon. Friend, but I feel that the Profiteering Act put into the hands of his Department, possibly a useful but certainly a very dangerous instrument as has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Lieut.-Colonel Willey), has been used in a very dangerous way. It seems to me that the operations of the Profiteering Act ought to be confined to trades about which a definite complaint has been made of profiteering, and where a primâ facie case has been made out. Now that is not the case today. We find the right hon. Gentleman's accountancy department has got a roving commission. It can say to any trade in this country that it wishes to examine its books, its costings, and its profits, although no complaints may have been alleged against that trade.
It seems to me that is a very dangerous procedure and requires very strong justification. What is the justification for it? I have inquired on various occasions, and I am told that the object of inquiries of that nature are for economic purposes. We are still in this country a nation of shopkeepers, and we like to conduct our business in a reasonable and straightforward way, but it has been the practice in all manufacturing industries in this country to be careful about divulging too much of our private affairs. Now our books have to be open to gentlemen who represent the Board of Trade, and in some cases the Ministry of Food, and, personally, I rather object to that method of investigation. Clause 5 means that the area of the Civil Service in this particular regard is being extended, and men who have not necessarily had the ordinary Civil Service training may be let loose on any particular business. That is keenly resented by the manufacturers in
this country, and rightly resented, unless there is a definite complaint of profiteering on the part of that particular trade. I want to know for whom this information is being got, and what use is being made of it. Who are the people who consider a report upon prices? There are various Standing Committees—one upon prices, one upon trusts, and one upon complaints. I understand that the last meeting of the Prices Committee consisted of Mr. Sidney Webb in the Chair, four officials of the Profiteering Department, two other officials, members of the Committee one employer, one Labour man, and one consumer. Is that seriously regarded as a competent Committee to sit upon manufacturers' prices or, indeed, anyone's prices? I have regard for the qualifications of Mr. Sidney Webb, but I am extremely doubtful about the advisability of having four officials of the Profiteering Committee who, I understand, have power to vote, and who can decide the complexion of the report. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I am informed that these men have power to vote on the Committee, and it is not unlikely that the information obtained will be used in time for political purposes in a way which will possibly be most unfair, and will not serve the end which the Government have in view.
Certain reports have been published by these Committies after inquiry, and some have been published very unwisely. My hon. Friend spoke about the electric lamps Report. The investigating Committee promised, according to my information, that highly confidential information, which was to be divulged to them, would not be published on account of the benefit it might be to foreign competitors, but the information was published by this Committee, and, as my hon. Friend suggests, the action of the Committee in that particular case does great damage to the trade of this country. While I realise how necessary it is to retain control in several Departments, and how very anxious we all are, especially to have the prices of food reduced, we are also extremely anxious not to have unnecessary and undue interference on the part of every Government Department with the natural flow of business. Manufacturers suffered a good deal during the War. They patriotically bore with every kind of interference
with their business, and it was right that they should do so. Now that the War is over they want, if possible, to get off their hands this oppressive bureaucracy. Whilst they are willing to co-operate in any reasonable suggestion such as that mentioned in the first Clause of the Bill, they do resent, in the strongest possible way, interference with their business, and those totally unnecessary investigations which are taken up by the Accountancy Department of the Board of Trade in particular industries in which no complaint of profiteering has been made.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: The speeches of some hon. Members leave me under considerable doubt on two points—as to whether they think there is such a thing as profiteering at all, and secondly, if so, do they or do they not desire to see it remedied? The existence of profiteering, by which I mean the making of an unreasonable profit, is an undoubted fact. You have only to look at the published balance sheets of some of the limited companies, which show enormous dividends since the War, where before the War many of them showed few or no profits. The Excess Profits Duty brings in between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 a year. Where do these come from, unless those who make them are charging higher prices to the consumer? Nobody seriously disputes the existence of high prices, or that every means in our power should be taken to reduce them; though I agree that they are mainly caused by the world shortage. The remedy for this is more production, less extravagance, less wasteful luxuries, less luxurious imports—by which you bring down the rate of exchange—greater exports—all these are methods by which high prices will undoubtedly be brought down in time, but the Act and this Amending Bill is a legitimate way of helping. There is no cause of greater unrest or greater dissatisfaction, and—I will add— upon which people are practically ignorant, than upon this question of high prices. I get postcards—doubtless, like other hon. Members—saying it is the fault of the Government; that "the women have their eye upon you." Very pleasant, especially at election time! But though I am prepared to be punished for my faults, I am not prepared for ignorant criticism of my good actions, and
when I do my best to reduce prices. I trust that I shall not be criticised by women when I support a Profiteering Bill, which, at any rate, will do something to bring down prices. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild) made a most ingenious speech. Does he dispute the existence of profiteering? His large experience proved, I doubt not, that there is profiteering. The hon. Member gave instances of people who had been wrongfully prosecuted under the Act, or at any rate who were successful in getting off. Supposing they were wrongfully prosecuted, is that any argument against the law? Is there any law in this country under which actions are not brought wrongfully? As a rule they get off and I think the complainants have to pay the costs in order to discourage such prosecutions. The remedy for that is not to vote against the Bill, but help to amend it and strengthen the Clauses so as to bring down high prices. Hon. Members should introduce effective Amendments for remedying the injustices which have been complained of, and so strengthen the Bill as to bring the real criminals to justice. Our experience of the last Act dealing with this subject is hardly long enough to enable us to form a sound opinion. I have been greatly impressed by the description of his experience given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts) and he urges us to continue and amend this Bill. I shall certainly act on that advice and when this Bill is strengthened by giving more powers of investigation to be used under proper conditions and by having cases published to act on prices I think we shall have done something to bring down these extravagantly high prices which are a fruitful breeding ground of unrest and discontent, and we on our part shall have done something to remove those legitimate causes of complaint.

Captain LOSEBY: I am not very enthusiastic about this Bill. The fact that during the past year something like £800 was raised by way of fines shows, at any rate, that the people who were operating that particular measure were not very enthusiastic about it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill that this is not necessarily any inherent fault in the Bill itself. It may be the fault of the agents acting under the Government in operating it.
I believe that the Bill has to some extent acted as a deterrent. When we have said that I think we have said pretty well all we need say about it. The main observation I want to make is in regard to the definition of profiteering—a question which was burked last year, but which the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to tackle this year. The definition goes to the very root of the Bill, but I suggest that it is not the true definition of profiteering. What is the definition given in this Bill? It is contained in Subsection (a) of Clause 2, and it reads:
(a) in the case of a seller who was in the same way of business before the War, if the rate of net profit obtained does not exceed the rate of net profit obtained by him upon the sale of similar articles under pre-War conditions.
In other words, if the small retailer found it necessary in order to live to make £100 a year before the War, he or she is to be liable to prosecution to-day for making more than that, although prices have gone up over 100 per cent. We may be most anxious, as I am for one, to prevent profiteering in this country, but we must be reasonable, and I venture to assert that no tribunal in the country would work out definite prices. In every country where prices are high the rate of legitimate profit is conceded to be higher. For instance, if 15 per cent. is considered high in this country, 35 per cent. is not deemed to be too high in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman rather assisted my argument when he said that 10 per cent. to-day was not better than 5 per cent. in 1914, and therefore I suggest it would be wrong for him to prosecute the retailer for making a profit of 10 per cent. in 1919, if he only made 5 per cent. in 1914. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep this point in mind during the Committee stage. No legislation in the world can stop profiteering: it is due to world shortage and that alone, and I feel that everything humanly possible is being done by the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to it.

Mr. BILLING: On many occasions when I have listened to Debates in this House, I have thanked my Maker that I had a sense of humour, and that has possibly never been the case more than during the last two hours. When I heard an hon. and learned Gentleman inform this House that, although he felt quite
sure his words would rob him of a considerable increase in income, the would still persist, I knew how futile were most of the alleged speeches which the supporters of the Government make in opposition to Government Bills. The hon. and learned Member knows as well as I do that there is no more chance of this Bill being defeated, or of any of the Amendments being carried, than there is of profiteering being stopped in this country, yet he tells us he feels it to be his duty to protest against the futility of the Bill. I do not say this in any offensive sense, but simply because I feel that to-night I must speak the truth. He tells us he does it because he feels that something must be said for these poor and penalised persons, and those poor and penalised persons go to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to other hon. and learned Members of this House, and pay large sums of money, to save what they fastidiously call their honour before these committees who have summoned them to appear.
The trouble with profiteering is example, and who is the example? It is the Government itself. Times without number, when we have traced the origin of various forced and inflated prices, we have found that behind it all is the Government, either with its control or its hoarded supplies, in which, owing to the emergencies of war, they have seen fit, by legislative measures, to create a trust. Carelessness in the administration of business causes high prices as well. When a man feels that he does not mind what the administration of his business costs so long as it pays him so much per cent., naturally it forces up prices. The Government, again, are responsible, with their 60 per cent. I heard of a case only last night, in which the managing director of a firm desired a picture, for which the artist required £4,000. He purchased the picture, and had some 500 lithographs made from it, which he circulated as calendars for his firm; and then he took the original picture home, and took the £4,000 out of the advertising account against excess profits. That is certainly an extreme case, but who eventually pays? It is the bottom dog that always pays, and that is why the bottom dog squeals to-day. He, unfortunately, is not represented in this House. I do not want to touch a lighter note to-night, because this
is really a serious matter. The main reason for high prices to-day is that the average business man does not mind how inefficient his business is, nor how much he spends, so long as he can make the maximum which the Government permit him to make. So long as that is made it does not matter what things cost him. Admittedly the supply is less than the demand, but that should not excuse inefficient administration. If a firm has been making £100,000 a year profit before the war, they know that they are allowed to make approximately £100,000 now, after 60 per cent, has been absorbed by the Government. All they do is to so adjust their prices that they can still make the same amount, and the man in the street pays. Therefore the Government is really more responsible for profiteering than even a little grocer who gets convicted of 2d. on margarine. The Bills they introduce are replies to popular clamour over fair measures, although I do not suppose one would be justified, having regard to the extraordinarily solid and uncriticising majority they possess, in suggesting that anything they did was based on panic. But in reference to newspaper opinion they rush down here and introduce a Bill. There is an hon. and gallant Gentleman who graces the Opposition bench on all occasions when anything in the interest of the public is debated, but he is alone. I sat by his side half-an-hour ago for five minutes simply to give him a little company. It is really a scandal when you think here is a Bill which is of the utmost interest to the public at large, and a matter almost of life and death to thousands of families, and to find that the reorganised Opposition is represented by one hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench, and approximately 10 per cent. of the Labour party. These are all Gentlemen who came into the House on the sensational wave of a coupon election.

Mr. SPEAKER: The number of the hon. Member's audience is really not very relevant to the subject matter.

Mr. BILLING: My remarks were applied to the lack of critical opposition to the Bill, and it was my way of expressing my regret. The hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Willey) became almost pathetic at the desire of the Government in any way to control the
profits in what I thought was the cotton trade. When I referred to Vacher, I found it was wool. The hon. Member was Assistant-Director of Equipment to the Ordnance Service and Controller of Wool Supplies for the Ministry of Munitions. I read a little further and found that he was partner in the firm of Messrs. Woolley and Company, wool merchants, of Bradford and Boston, and that he was elected at the General Election in December, 1918. That, in the opinion of the few independent Members of this House, accounts for a great many of the impassioned speeches which we hear. It is all very well to say, " Do not stop the overseas profits; do not stop Messrs. Coats' profits; do not stop all these various profits. They are all helping to adjust the rate of exchange." That is no reason why they should penalise the people of this country. Surely the burden that we are carrying is quite enough, seeing that we are carrying the bulk of the burden of the cost of the War, without our being penalised further as individuals to keep up the rate of exchange. That is another form of direct taxation. The Government not only taxes us in every way, but in placing Excess Profits tax on the various businesses they are forcing the proprietors of those businesses—and this is what I want the Labour party to appreciate—and all the large combines to force up prices and tax the bottom dog again. It is no good forcing up prices with one hand and introducing Bills of this description with the other. I told the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Profiteering Bill a year ago what would be the result, and it has proved to be substantially true. The various Committees which have been set up to administer the Profiteering Act have not even paid their stamp duties with their fines. They have not paid their postage with the fines they have inflicted. I do not know of any case where imprisonment has been imposed.
I wonder how many hon. members really take the Profiteering Act seriously, or really take this measure seriously. I expressed the hope when the present Profiteering Act was introduced that by catching the small man you might eventually catch the large man; but no small man was sufficiently penalised to make him give away the man immediately above him. Therefore, on no occasion have we caught a really nice, big, fat profiteer in the twelve months that the
Act has been in operation. Let us remember the various questions which have been put, particularly from the bench below me, on the question of the price of cotton. It has all been explained away. No action has been taken. Look at the price of petrol. A great many of the Directors of the petrol concerns in this country are actually sitting in this House as Coalition members. We can do nothing with that matter. When members complain that the price of petrol is soaring through profiteering what happens? The Government say, "Very well, we will take the tax off, and put it somewhere else; we will put it on the engines—always leaving the profiteer scot free." The public are beginning to realise that in each case the big fat profiteer, the thing you would have some satisfaction in catching, goes free, while the little fellow who endeavours to make two ends meet, as pathetically described by the hon. Member on the other side, gets fined sundry shillings.
There is another reason. That is the share gambling. The right hon. Gentleman has never taken that into consideration. The hon. Member behind me asks for consideration for a particular trade. All these various members say, "We are not really profiteering," but the test of whether a firm is making big profits or not is its share list. Find out what its shares are quoted at, and compare it with the price of the shares before the war. That is the surest indication as to whether it is making vast profits or not. The whole question is naturally one of supply and demand. But the unfortunate thing is that since this War there has grown up a multitude of middlemen, all of whom are plundering, and these middlemen are neither producers nor distributors. They are simply men who gamble in the price of things between the men who produce things and the public who desire to consume them, and they continue to fatten on the last man to pay.
I may give an example, and I will come as near home as possible. Take our own Kitchen Committee. On the night the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, and suggested—he did not carry it—50 per cent. ad valorem on cigars, the 2s. cigar in the smoking room went up to 2s. 6d. I know because I bought it. Is that a good example to set people throughout the country? Then wine and whiskey were put up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Down."] They were put
down, but I submit in smaller quantities than they would have been if they had not been put up. Even the Kitchen Committee of this House forced up the prices of what a number of hon. Members regard as essentials simply because an indication was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he proposed to raise the tax. That is unfair. These articles could not possibly have been bought at an increased price between the time the Chancellor sat down at twenty minutes past six and half-past seven when we sat down. But that is an illustration of what is taking place over the whole country, a desire not to get the value of a thing but to get the maximum price which they think a deluded public can be forced to pay.
Would the right hon. Gentleman see that at least the essentials of this country are dealt with? I mean not only food, but all those necessities the price of which affects not so much the Members of this House as the members of the public who can least afford to pay for them. Directly the supply is less than the demand, certain adventurous persons, who probably are not associated with a particular trade at all, take advantage of the situation by jumping in and forming a corner or trust in an article. Surely it should not be very difficult to control them. It would at least save us from the reading of postcards and extracts from popular papers, and even from threats that at the next general election we shall lose certain support. We know there is this injustice, and that the sufferers are a class of people who are inarticulate in this House because they have no trade union and no organisation behind them—the lower middle class, who are the most penalised class in this country to-day.

The MINISTER OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I hope my right hon. Friend may now get the Second Reading of his Bill. It has been a very interesting debate, and those of us who were present when the present Profiteering Act was introduced eight months ago cannot fail to have been struck by the difference of tone in this Debate compared with the Debate then. One cannot fail to draw from that contrast some indication that the extravagant fears with regard to what the Profiteering Act would effect and the extravagant objections expressed eight months ago have proved to be unfounded. The criticisms heard to-night require only to be
stated to answer one another. The main criticism is that of which we heard a great deal when the Act was introduced—that this is really an Act for the purpose of harassing the retail traders of the country, while leaving the great businesses and trusts and combines untouched. The figures which were quoted by my right hon. Friend show conclusively that whatever else the Act may be it has certainly not, as administered, proved to be an influence for harassing the retail traders of the country. On the contrary, while it has, I am convinced, deterrent and salutary effects upon retailers, so far as harassing the local trader is concerned what are the facts? Eighteen hundred local committees have been set up and 4,000 complaints have been heard in the course of seven or eight months, or an average of two retailers "harassed" by each committee. The fact is, as anyone knows who is familiar with what happened, the retail trades from the moment the Act was passed were extremely interested in the provisions. Trade conferences were summoned of the great retail trades in order that the traders might discuss it, and a great amount of attention was focussed upon what was and what was not a fair and reasonable profit, and upon what view the tribunal might take of the profit charged. The result was that there was a searching of conscience, and, to a certain extent, a revision of prices, and, as a matter of cold fact, there were few cases indeed for the local tribunal to try. On the other hand, it was suggested by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Willey), who spoke almost in pathetic terms and described the Act as an engine of most cruel oppression to the great trading industries of this country, and a waste of time, and he regarded it as a positive outrage that anybody should even venture to inquire what rate of profit was being made or by whom it was being made in some of the textile industries, the fruits of whose efforts we all know to our cost when we enter a shop to buy. I am quite sure the views expressed by the hon. Member are not shared by the people of this country.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: I did not wish to convey that there was any objection to investigation. That was not the point I desired to make. I said I saw no object
in prosecuting investigations in sectional trades, and that that could not obviously assist the consumer. On the contrary I agree with you and I support the Bill. Something is necessary, but I do object to waste of time when nothing can be accomplished, not that I object to investigation, I welcome it.

Mr. McCURDY: I am glad to hear the representative of the great textile trade in Bradford welcoming investigation. I can assure him he shall have it. There are people who say, you are harrassing the retail traders and not seriously investigating what the great businesses and combines are doing; even though they rise in their place and ask you to do so. Both these cannot be true. I venture to suggest as a matter of fact what my right hon. Friend's predecessor and my right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade in their administration of the last eight months have done, and what my right hon. Friend seeks by this Bill to do is to steer a middle course, which is open to neither of these objections. It was said by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild) that this Bill made every retailer a potential criminal. As a matter of fact in administering this Act and in the Amendments in this Bill, we have not regarded this matter in that spirit at all. The Bill seeks to treat this matter not upon the footing of a criminal offence, but on the footing that we are passing through a difficult economic time, a time when it is easy to take advantage of the abnormal trade conditions in order unduly to inflate prices, and on the belief that in dealing with abnormal economic conditions it lies within the power of the trades themselves, if they are willing to do so, to deal with the matter more effectively and more satisfactorily, from the point of view of the consumer and of the public, as well as of the trades, than could any body of officials which might be set up for that purpose.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) said, "Have you broken the combines yet?" I would remind him that the problem of dealing with profiteering by trusts and combines is not one which arose yesterday, but one which has taxed the ingenuity of lawyers and statesmen in the United States of America for a quarter of a century. We have been happy in this country that we have SO long been spared the necessity of devoting time and attention to that problem. It is
not reasonable to ask, "Have you broken the trusts and combines in six months?" No; but I do believe that in this Bill lies the germ of what may prove to be the ultimate and satisfactory solution not merely of this temporary evil of profiteering arising out of war-time conditions, and which we believe, with the disappearance of war-time conditions, will itself disappear, but may prove to afford a solution of profiteering as arising out of great trusts and combines. That is the principle, that if it is possible for the trades to form themselves into combinations in the interests of trade, to stabilise prices and delimit profits, it must also be possible for the traders, if they are willing, to combine for the purpose of stabilising prices and regulating profits not merely in their own selfish interests, but having regard to the general interests of the public and of the consumer. I should like to express my gratification, as the Member for the capital of the great boot and shoe trade, that the boot and shoe trade have given to the country the example and the object lesson upon which this amending Bill is based. I venture to suggest that this House does pursue a sane and common-sense business method of endeavouring to grapple with these evils in consultation and cooperation with trades, without any drastic disturbance to the fabric of our commercial prosperity, and it is because it is neither on the one hand an Act which does nothing nor, on the other hand, a harsh, oppressive measure, that I venture to ask this House, without much further delay, to give us the Second Beading of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This Bill has been brought forward for Second Reading at a very late hour owing to the unexpected collapse—it was partly my fault, because I went out for a moment—of a most important discussion. If hon. Members were not, I will not say caught napping but caught out, or had they done their duty, the last most important discussion would have lasted till 11 o'clock, and I consider it were effrontery on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to have had the intention to introduce a Bill of this immense importance to the trade and industry and people of the country, and force it through by his coupon majority after 11 o'clock at night. The President of the Board of Trade has been a member of this House a little longer than I have, but he has only spent
in it about a fifteenth of the time that I have, and I do not think that it is quite fair of him to treat lightly reasoned amendments put down for the rejection of a Bill. He is not such an experienced member that he should treat other hon. Members, one of whom has been in this House for twelve years, lightly. We did not put down our Amendment for parade, but for a useful purpose. I am extremely grateful that I did not, Mr. Speaker, catch your eye earlier in the evening, because I had hoped that some hon. Members would have had the courage of their convictions, and have supported us in moving the rejection, but with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Upton (Sir E. Wild) and the last speaker before the untimely and premature interruption of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McCurdy) we have had no support, and yet in the smoke room this Bill has been roundly condemned. Then we have had the usual spectacle of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Short) condemning the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party, and then declaring that they would vote for it. In introducing the Bill the President of the Board of Trade told us a story of the village idot who blocked a little stream up in the Cotswold Hills. I will repeat the story for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must warn the hon. and gallant Member that there is a rule against repetition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think that I repeat my own stories as a rule, and I apologise at once. I was repeating the story of the President of the Board of Trade, and I was going to compare this Bill with the village idiot who thought that he could stop the Thames by blocking a little trickling stream in the hills. This Bill affects many millions of poor people in the country, and they want to know what we are going to do to bring prices down. Our objection to the Bill is set out in our reasoned Amendments. We consider Clause 1 is thoroughly mischievous, and that it will encourage and make almost compulsory the formation of rings and trusts.
I have spoken to a good many business men about high prices lately, and they have always got one remedy—competition. If you insist that the rings and trusts
shall themselves fix prices, you are going to prevent competition. Take blankets. A friend of mine is a blanket manufacturer. He has patent rights for manufacturing blankets more cheaply and quickly than at present, but he cannot introduce it because he is prevented by the blanket-making combine. They have threatened him with boycott and other forms of pressure. Trusts for a time may reduce prices, and may be more efficient, but sooner or later they become stereotyped and conservative. Suppose at this moment someone invented a process of manufacturing sewing-cotton more cheaply than Messrs. Coats, he would be opposed by Messrs Coats in every possible way, and he would be a bold man to introduce his new patent in face of the combine. That is our objection to trusts and rings, and I believe the instinct which condemns them is correct. The Minister of Food referred to the fight of a quarter of a century in the United States to break the trusts, and they had not succeeded. They have broken up one of the big oil combines, and I believe they are going to break up the big private control of meat and some other articles of food. We must not condemn at once the efforts of the Americans. We may learn much from them. I am going to tell the President of the Board of Trade what I told a very indignant lady in my constituency, and that is the cure for high prices. She was indignant with what she called the profiteers. I have mentioned one way of bringing down prices, and that is competition, and I object to this Bill because it prevents competition. Then there is the method which has been adopted in America of combining together. If only housewives in this country will form a society, have a paid staff, examine prices, then, by mutual consent, when they are being fleeced they can boycott the article. Boots were mentioned by the Food Minister. He says there is no profiteering in boots. He is ill-informed. The profiteering in children's boots is most indefensible. I have four children of my own, and know what I am talking about. After all, this affects the health of the children, because if they do not have decent boots they cannot have decent health. This matter of children's boots is a very patent case of profiteering. Children have to have boots, and are always wearing them out, and so the price
has been raised to a ridiculously high point, out of proportion to the boots of adults. That could be checked at once if people would boycott children's boots, and, by a convention, buy no boots for their children at all, but—in the summer, of course—let them run about barefooted. That is an extreme case, but, just as in America they are boycotting tailors by wearing overalls, so housewives in this country could do without coffee, for example, and possibly without tea. If they would do this it would very soon bring the prices down. The consumer really has the whip hand, if he likes to combine for his own protection.
There is a third method, which is that of many very sincere people, who say you will not get rid of profiteering until you get rid of the profiteer; in other words, they want to nationalise everything. Undoubtedly collectivism would have stopped profiteering, but it is not a practical proposition in this country. I am afraid human nature is against it at the present moment. We shall have to go through a good deal more suffering before we adopt it, and it will be many years before the bulk of the people of this country will be converted to it. I mention it, however, because it is a way of stopping profiteering. There is another practical method which I put to the Government with great sincerity. Control, as at present exercised, is useless. Suppose that in this country you control blankets at a price which does not induce people in this country to sell them—say 5s. a pair. If the price of blankets in Europe is £l a pair, naturally you get no blankets in this country; they would all go to Europe.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this has any relevance to the Bill before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is going to show whether the Bill will control blankets or will not control them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am giving a reason for rejecting the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will rule that I am in order if I am allowed to make my point. If you control only in this country, and there is a very high price in Europe, or in the world generally, the goods are exported. Business men are not philanthropists, and they sell their goods in the best markets. The only way
really to tackle the problem is by international control, and that will have to come. I see that the President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, and at the moment the Presidents of the Boards of Trade in all the countries of Europe will shake their heads; but they are going to be forced into it. We shall have to have some international convention for the control of prices. The supplies of wool in the world are limited, and if there is free play of competition between buyers, with a limited article and a limited number of sellers, prices will soar, as they are doing now. The only way in which the price of wool can be kept down is by international action. Practically the whole of the world's wool at present comes from South America and Australia, and we have got to get the Governments of those countries into consultation, and to educate the democracies of all the countries concerned. If they can sell us wool cheaply, we can sell to them cheaply the articles they want from us. It is on these lines, I am quite convinced, that this matter of high world prices will have to be tackled. Take the question of coal. We could be accused by our French and Belgian allies, as well as by neutral countries, of profiteering in coal. We are selling them coal at about six times the price it is retailed in this country. We ought not, the French would say, to subsidise ourselves at their expense unless we are prepared to enter into an arrangement for a joint price to be charged on both sides of the Channel. We must have world prices arranged by international action. There is no reason why we should not sell our coal under cost price on the understanding that wheat, hides and wool which we require from other countries should be sold by them to us also under cost price. The right. hon. Gentleman opposite treats that suggestion lightly, but it is a question which was examined into by Sir Auckland Geddes, who only turned it down after very careful investigation. I believe that is the way in which only we can hope to break the vicious circle of rising prices, which, unless it is stopped, will lead to such terrible unrest as will result in practical revolution. It is only by international action that this problem can be tackled.
There is another measure often used, which I hope may be embodied in this Bill, and that is the introduction of a national costings system. Without such a
system how can we break down the trusts and rings, etc., of manufacturers? The costings system adopted by the War Office during the War and by the Ministry of Munitions saved this country scores of millions of pounds by bringing down the fundamental prices of articles produced on a great scale. Such a system would be a check on the prices of all articles in common use. I do not suggest general control at every stage of manufacture, but I do urge we should have a costing system in addition to international control for raw material. The Profiteering Bill is a symptom of what is going to be our great trouble in the next year or two. The question will arise as to which classes are to pay for the War—is it to be paid for by a reduction in the standard of living of the lower middle classes, or by a reduction in the profits of the capitalist class. There will be many more Bills like this, and the present Bill, I think, will be quite useless for the purpose for which it is intended, but I fear that few Members will have the moral courage to vote against it on that account. The Labour party know that the Bill is useless, but they will vote for the Government, and under these circumstances I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division.

Mr. PALMER: I know it is unpopular to speak at this time of the night and I apologise to the House for detaining it, but—

Sir J. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. PALMER: I feel it my duty to enter my protest against this weak and ridiculous Bill, and I know that honestly in that I have the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Labour and of the Food Controller, who have recently been returned at bye-elections, and know that during their electoral campaign they found that what the people really cared about was not the state of Europe or the condition of Ireland, but what most affected them in their own homes—the cost of living. One of the hon. Members who spoke just now referred to the price of boots. That sounded humorously to some hon. Members, but really it is the bed rock of things to-day. I have come to this House particularly pledged to do
12 P. M.
what I can to deal with the big profiteer and to see that the little man is not harassed out of existence. An hon. Mem ber just now made an earnest plea to be let alone. The Minister for Food looked at him rather curiously, and shook his head cynically. I have had the curiosity to look up the name of that hon Member in Dod, and find that he is largely interested in the Bradford wool industry. Some of us feel that the Government in dealing with the wholesaler are not in earnest. I think it was the present Food Controller who on one occasion suggested that it would disturb trade if they got at the wholesaler, but surely it would be better to do that than to disturb the country. A special plea has been put in for the little man, but it was rather suggested that if the little man makes a bad deal in ribands, he should be allowed to make it up on silk stockings. I do not agree with that. I think that in all these matters there should be a reasonable standard of profit, and it is the duty of the Government to see that such a reasonable profit should alone be made. I noticed the 12 P.M. other day that in a long letter to the " Times " Dr. Morris tried to make out that the cost of living was only 30 per cent. above the pre-war level. I ask the Minister of Labour if he would have dared to talk like that at his recent bye-election? The feeling on this subject is very great, and there is no indication whatever in this Bill that it is a genuine and serious attempt to deal with the evils of profiteering. I heard the Food Controller say very much the same as was said when the original Bill was before us—that here was the germ of an ultimate solution. We have heard that before. It does not wash! It is no germ of an ultimate solution: it is a sop—a very little sop—to public opinion. This will not satisfy the discontent and heartburning, I can assure the Treasury Bench, that, exists amongst the lower and middle classes. The late Food Controller (Mr. G. Roberts) said this evening that high prices were due to world scarcity. That up to a point, we admit, is true. But there has been, with that, gross profiteering. The fact of the world scarcity has been used by all classes of traders and merchants to exploit the people, and especially the middle classes, and those whom we call the " new poor." Why, the Leader of the House actually on
one occasion apologised here, before we had the Act, for the shipping dividends he had received! But, like other right hon. Gentlemen who regret the profits they receive, we had no indication that he gave back the profits to the Treasury.
There is to-day a determination on the part of the public to see that the Government bring in a genuine Bill to deal with profiteering. We had a Committee appointed to inquire into cotton—to in quire why a reel of cotton that before the war cost 2d. now costs 10½d. But it is no satisfaction to the poor women of the country that Messrs. Coats say they are making the bulk of their profits out of their export trade! So it is with petrol and electric lamps. When these reports are brought before the public, what happens? The Government say, as I think they said yesterday: " We have just received the rejoinder." Surely if there was any sincerity in the matter of these Committees you would not want a re joinder; you would ask the people at the heads of the firms to come before the Committee, and give their evidence in answer—

Captain Sir B. STANIER: That is exactly what has been done?

Mr. PALMER: Why do you want a rejoinder? You are delaying everything by this stupid

Sir R. HORNE: In fairness it should be said in regard to Messrs. Coats that they appeared before the Committee, gave their views to the Committee, and the Committee has not yet reported upon what they said.

Mr. PALMER: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I will refer him particularly to the electric lamp industry. I think it was referred to yesterday. The Government were asked: " What are you doing in the matter? " The answer was: " We have only received the rejoinder of the trade; we want to consider the rejoinder before we take action." I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of any of these matters; but I am saying that the public get the idea that there is deliberate and consistent delay in dealing with the charges that are made. I apologise for detaining the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "] Yes;
I apologise, although the Government is to blame for bringing forward a Bill of this enormous importance at so late an hour. The country is watching this Debate. [Laughter.] It may sound humorous, but if hon. Members would spend a little less time in this House and a little more time in their constituencies they would realise how deep and sincere is the feeling in the country on this question of high prices. The Government are not responsible for the high prices. It is ridiculous to charge them with it, and I have never done so in any speech I have delivered. But the country wants from the Government a little more indication of the spirit of sincerity in dealing with this matter. The Prime Minister to-day twitted certain hon. Members on the results of bye-elections. If the Government would bring one or two profiteers to justice, and give three months to Coats' cotton or to Bradford wool, they need never fear the bye-elections for the next three years. The public are sincere on this subject, and they are very angry. This Bill is not a real and sincere attempt to deal with the fundamentals of this question, and when it gets to the Committee stage I hope, in association with some of my friends, to be able to do something to strengthen it. I am sorry that we cannot rely upon the Labour party in this matter. If there was one question on which I should have thought the Labour benches would have been crowded with men who pretend to represent the lower and the working classes it is this question. One would have expected them to be here to-night to stand by the few men who are jeered at because they think it their duty to keep the House sitting fifteen minutes after midnight to enter their protest against the weakness and futility of this Bill. I am proud to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and any man who will stand up for the poor and the middle classes. We have entered our protest, and in the Committee stage we shall do our best to improve what I regard as a weak-kneed and jejune measure.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not intend to detain the House with any useless words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not apologise. It is rather the Government Whips who should apologise
for bringing on this Bill at this late hour. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull has raised a point of very great interest in regard to the Government's trade policy. Clause I of this Bill provides that the fairness of the price is to be decided by the persons in the trade who deal in the particular articles.

Sir R. HORNE: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend cannot have read the Clause! Let him read the Clause before he attempts to use such criticism.

Captain BENN: Any persons or associations of persons who are manufacturers or distributors can submit a scheme to be approved by the Board of Trade.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member has stated in the House that it rests with the manufacturers and distributors in question to determine what is to be their own price. That is not so at all.

Captain BENN: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has interrupted me, because he has assisted me to make my point. My point is this, that the scheme is prepared by the manufacturers or distributors and approved by the Board of Trade. At this moment the Board of Trade has a Bill before the House which will permit them to put an embargo upon foreign imports. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Perhaps he has not read this Bill. There is a Bill called the Indemnity Bill which confers upon the Board of Trade power to reimpose embargoes upon any imports into this country. That, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, may have the effect of forcing up prices of necessary articles in this country. He is right, because on the one hand the Board of Trade has power to approve a scheme drafted by the profiteers themselves, and on the other hand they have the power to prevent anyone from competing with the profiteers by sending goods into the country. Although I understand my hon. and gallant Friend does not intend to divide. it is well that the point should be made, and that the public should understand that we are drifting back into an era of high prices through—I do not want to be offensive—what we regard as the ignorant control of trade by the Board of Trade.

Question put "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 5.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
3.57 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hallwood, Augustine


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Courthope, Major George L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hanna, George Boyle


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Atkey, A. R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Haslam, Lewis


Baird, John Lawrence
Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Baldwin, Stanley
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Barrand, A. R.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Barrie, Hugh Thorn. (Lon'derry, N.)
Dawes, James Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Houston, Robert P.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Howard, Major S. G.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hudson, R. M.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Duncannon, Viscount
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Betterton, Henry B.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hunter-Weston, Lieut. Gen. Sir A. G.


Blrchall, Major J. Dearman
Edge, Captain William
Hurd, Percy A.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jameson, J. Gordon


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jesson, C.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Fildes, Henry
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Briggs, Harold
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Forrest, Walter
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr


Burdett-Coutts, William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gardiner, James
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)


Butcher, Sir John George
Gardner, Ernest
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Campbell, J. D. G.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Carr, W. Theodore
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Casey, T. W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Lindsay, William Arthur


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Chamberlain, N.(Birm., Ladywood)
Grant, James A.
Lloyd, George Butler


Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Lonsdale, James Rolston


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lorden, John William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greer, Harry
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greig, Colonel James William
Lynn, R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gritten, W. G. Howard
M'Curdy, Charles Albert


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.


Cope, Major Wm.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sutherland, Sir William


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Macmaster, Donald
Prescott, Major W. H.
Taylor, J.


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Mallalieu, F. w.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Turton, E. R.


Matthews, David
Rodger, A. K.
Wallace, J.


Moles, Thomas
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wason, John Cathcart


Morison, Thomas Brash
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Morrison, Hugh
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Whitla, Sir William


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sessoon, Sir Phillip Albert Gustave D.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Mount, William Arthur
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C.(Tavistock)


Murchison, C. K.
Seager, Sir William
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Simm, M. T.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Nail, Major Joseph
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Neal, Arthur
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Woolcock, William James U.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stanton, Charles B.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Oman, Charles William C.
Starkey, Captain John R.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Stevens, Marshall



Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stewart, Gershom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. James Parker.


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sturrock, J. Leng



Percy, Charles
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Spoor, B. C.


Briant, Frank
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wignall, James


Devlin, Joseph
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L.(Leyton, E.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Finney, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Winterton, Major Earl


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Mills.


Hallas, Eldred
Redmond, Captain William Archer

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[12.12 a.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Balrd, John Lawrence
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Baldwin, Stanley
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnston, Major Harry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rodger, A. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Royce, William Stapleton


Brldgeman, William Clive
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Royden, Sir Thomas


Brlttaln, Sir Harry
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bromfield, William
Hope, Lt.-Col.Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hlllhead)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jameson, J. Gordon
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Casey, T. W.
Johnson, L. S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Chamberlain, N. (Blrm., Ladywood)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stanton, Charles B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lort-Williams, J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Dawes, James Arthur
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Edge, Captain William
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Vickers, Douglas


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Whitla, Sir William


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morison, Thomas Brash
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Foreman, Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Forrest, Walter
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthlngton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.



Goff, Sir R. Park
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gould, James C.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.




Parker.


 align="center">NOES.


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy


Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

and Mr. Charles Palmer.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, " That

the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."—[Mr. A. Short.]

The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 115

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[12.18 a.m.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Bromfield, William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James
Major Barnes and Mr. Alfred




Short.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Edge, Captain William


Baird, John Lawrence
Casey, T. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Baldwin, Stanley
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Falcon, Captain Michael


Barnston, Major Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Foreman, Henry


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Forrest, Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot


Bridgeman, William Ciive
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dawes, James Arthur
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Butcher, Sir John George
Doyle, N. Grattan
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Goff, Sir R. Park
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Gould, James C.
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Stanton, Charles B.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Nail, Major Joseph
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Neal, Arthur
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Vickers, Douglas


Hurd, Percy A.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Jameson, J. Gordon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Whitla, Sir William


Johnson, L. S.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rodger, A. K.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Royce, William Stapleton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Royden, Sir Thomas



Lort-Williams, J.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.


Lynn, R. J.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.



M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John



Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.

Ordered, "That Mr. Ronald McNeill be discharged from the Committee";

Ordered, "That Mr. Howard Gritten be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

DUPLICANDS OF FEU-DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Read a Second time, and Committed to a Standing Committee.

PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of making further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses incurred under the Profiteering Acts, 1919, as amended by any Act of the present Session, to amend and extend the duration of those Acts (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Sir Robert Horne.]

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.